Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 15 November 2012 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D037221F88A9; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:59:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.072
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuJjMLj5-Ykx; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:4038:0:16::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B802C21F8991; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.3] (unknown [62.140.132.44]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B451200C; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:59:45 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <6E5736BD68F770449C74FBAD975F807C94AA2C60@NYDC-EXCH01.vinci-consulting-corp.local>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:59:41 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85D1FE26-4299-454C-AE81-684B08934232@steffann.nl>
References: <6E5736BD68F770449C74FBAD975F807C94AA2C60@NYDC-EXCH01.vinci-consulting-corp.local>
To: Paul Vinciguerra <pvinci@VinciConsulting.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:59:57 -0000

Hi,

> So there will be a pool of addresses that the RIR's can allocate out of for EIDs?  If that's the case, what is the additional value to an ISP who would conceivably have to pay the RIR for another block of V6 addresses specifically for use as EIDs, when most likely they are already paying for a block that can be used for either purpose? 


Good point.

I am currently using my whole /32 allocation from RIPE NCC as EID space. I run multiple PxTRs in an BGP based anycast setup to route to/from the non-LISP internet. What would be the use of requesting another prefix? I would have to put it in the global routing table to route traffic for it (unless other people start running PITRs for the whole /12, but then we get the 3rd party relay dependencies we know so well from 6to4...)

(PS: my PxTRs do map-requests for anything in ::/0 using DDT, so everything in DDT is already sent to a locator if possible, and they forward traffic natively otherwise)

Met vriendelijke groet,
Sander Steffann