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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 22 November 2012 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 6023221F88A9; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 nJB3NYbQ8xbb; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A10621F8735; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr13so3476306wgb.13 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BvsTk82ZB+qKD/OQdl2Llfha8JttLNjNSjxIejs34CM=; b=StG+MrOx4cTDlkAQdnzLXWhW0DWrOS929dnmd/oIGKHXz6xoNzx2wdT5vc2axA+CQp 0Zt5Clv+dJcvS3NoxZ1ghTQowqEyzd74+lLxd8xzZ5VvbxfYkxIsSI8qfd4AwzaNf5pz 7LVcryWTH3fxx2FOD8IXeq9zZBL41fXPy2eG786h9+MGVSJsV721csQxEnl1o+vZ+9bm 89oYuY01ISaCyaDNa+H8MXBojNqiiHPgUWMEdLqK0Sqrievw2UNZYtQxv4ykTnQJxGnO UOfKFep+JsBYIXjb3h2Yzt8X5Ix0c9pDTTeju5g++jsp8++uIuF/XSi29AKhei8/pLkX aJtw==
Received: by 10.216.211.84 with SMTP id v62mr68144weo.158.1353577471087; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-218-157.as13285.net. [2.102.218.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm3579846wiz.10.2012.11.22.01.44.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50ADF407.1090300@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:44:39 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SFz0g2ZmTudPOu4y1hY+u=BXG8awQUbWrwvbRzRxBsZtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 09:44:33 -0000

Hi Roger,

On 22/11/2012 09:04, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Make it an allocation for EIDs and ILNP can use it too.
> 
> Somehow I hear a voice in the back of my head asking if we're talking
> about starting to use another big IPv6 block than 2000::/3 for the two
> above mention usage?
> 
> 2000::/3 for our current model of Internet with our current style of
> allocation/assignment of address space to ISP/end users
> xxxx::/3 for future modells, LISP/EID, ILNP and others?

I've been relatively relaxed for many years about allocation policy
in 2000::/3, precisely because that leaves most of the total address
space free in case we turn 2000::/3 into a swamp.

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.

    Brian