IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 15 November 2012 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 5CFE821F8959; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hzV+4wsCHDg0; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC2F21F896E; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.48.32] (unknown [87.213.29.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B2EB68BC; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 03:58:49 +1000 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <63359CE6-0009-45D1-B2AE-3F2B4384D5D4@gigix.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:58:44 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2919A9C-5333-46E8-84BE-A302B75B73DE@apnic.net>
References: <20121113144545.12836.71935.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121114030352.0da0e888@resistor.net> <63359CE6-0009-45D1-B2AE-3F2B4384D5D4@gigix.net>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Mailing List" <ietf@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 17:59:04 -0000

>> In Section 6:
>> 
>> "It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any
>>  other address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix
>>  belongs to.  This is to accommodate future requests of EID
>>  space without fragmenting the EID addressing space."
>> 
>> Shouldn't that be under IANA Considerations?
> 
> Well, if we go along that road we should put the whole document in a single "IANA Considerations" Section. ;-)
> 
> Actually the current IANA Considerations section states the same request but does not specify "/12".
> You are right that it should be clearly stated, to make the document coherent. Will fix. thanks
> 

it would be very helpful for the document to clearly show the basis for the calculation of a /12. Why a /12 and not any other size? What are the underlying estimates here? Why do they lead to the conclusion of a /12?

I am uncomfortable with the rather vague nature of the justification being shown here, and I don't think that this document as it stands is ready for publication. 

Geoff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email