IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 22 November 2012 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
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 791C121F867A; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 IalP1l0FdW3a; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A45521F8675; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz11so4073648pad.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=UMy02y22gBXU+oJo3bCrgsflQzMQhLikDfm9GPmh1lI=; b=cv64l7druRyo3oraWP0ca3he5nOGvfx6UPktSh96IMc7RVFn/mfGNhwb6diKO5kaYJ fQOEmYC9qmdmtpajVZzaBrxengOetepMMZJxeIoLaIoYShMcS2qt3j98u8e8I3sD9pSi wwat8buGAVWxL4f4kDnfUXT/c53Ls3D8pqpfR/ROUqhF9IeA6C1YoB7DfuN2G07CNZyq ctr9+vSvWVU/d1yvOQlAfybK9+131U0Wq/qZxDjPc9cmG1Ik+evkRc07b3/x3Yw0cb8k AEHNIN5VX7LrhpMroZpLXnyfOAOGQk7MFWdQjJOKPLUWWQgfnKfN9XaS+r2P0+f4LTbf hOjA==
Received: by 10.66.80.194 with SMTP id t2mr4385589pax.43.1353617779760; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.214] (adsl-107-198-84-82.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [107.198.84.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mt15sm2570601pbc.49.2012.11.22.12.56.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:18 -0800 (PST)
References: <20121121175836.EE11B18C0D3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD592303385FBF7A@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <A19BAA78-C359-4AB5-8C22-046938B64ACB@gmail.com> <CAKFn1SFz0g2ZmTudPOu4y1hY+u=BXG8awQUbWrwvbRzRxBsZtw@mail.gmail.com> <50ADF407.1090300@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <50ADF407.1090300@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7EC87FF-E913-4CC9-9ACC-7A1CB372B830@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A525)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:17 -0800
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@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, 22 Nov 2012 20:56:20 -0000

> I would be a bit nervous about dedicating another /3 for unproven
> use. There's a risk of it ending up unusable like Class E. So
> if we are going to do this, doing it inside 2000::/3 seems a
> bit safer to me.

So what if we could say the use is simply to assign addresses out of this block that stay relatively permanent to a device that sources packets from this address. 

The address has no dependency on the topology the device connects to, the number of interfaces the device has  connected to the network, or even if the device is connected at all to the network. 

So this proposal doesn't have to be associated with LISP or any other mechanism being used. This block could be used today as simply a PI block if no new mechanism is deployed.  And if a sub-block of this prefix is used for LISP purposes, then so be it. 

And I don't think we have to jump in with 2 feet and allocate a very coarse prefix for this. 

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email