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

["Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> wrote:
 >
 > The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
 > WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
 > - 'LISP EID Block'
 >   <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> as Informational RFC
 >
 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
 > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
 > ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
 > sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
 > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
 >
 > Abstract
 >
 >
 >    This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
 >    with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be
 >    used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
 >    identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
 >    addressing space.

Mmm... In section 5 it states:

    The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16
    prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for
    future use as EID space.  The reason of such consensus is manifold:

So it is not asking just a /16 but also asking for reservation of a /12.

Pretty big space.

And in the list of reasons, I mainly read that it is "sufficiently large",
but not much about why it needs to be this big. Why would a smaller
allocation not be sufficient?

Bert