Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> Thu, 31 October 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rogerj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90F111E817A for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3Tyf8aIndw3 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49DA11E8195 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ey11so179744wid.6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=fhPCjTY9KSethY7pJ7sOL+4JwPlYeoQz35WUN2ZpJe4=; b=SRs3bUoWzFMab1JuFQ04Zmagob++Mcfx1iiECbfGCIoIdyPIIT5g4ygVcqZtJBuemU LiPAtVHiHKYOfFKXkXwmeqFWLcrlMTKuNEDKR7gsLWqnjcfNZ4rl/jSek6LdfV75QcCV +fNLVqL6Un6wTgkWI1Kh83JZepUJQqC+/LJGUrYxaAzegsas0J9svnCXPEU9tkunfPzf vI/Cez6qhZzsbv35HdGZl9FcQwzZehi+M6+H55eq79nhxaz9Lu5B6Z0tztGT1Q+G8lKN oFc6sU2Ox1xRZJ+VkHOi6sM5n/AfJe+fYSAcgxawRYA77JYOl9drZX3iF42YQI+OUGrc BuTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.75.165 with SMTP id d5mr4319232wjw.18.1383247007845; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.213.72 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5de387024da61865cc438dea499da279@bartschnet.de>
References: <20131031153235.DA90D18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5de387024da61865cc438dea499da279@bartschnet.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:16:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKFn1SEFsHMjjSeLNvq+-uEaTZag+45Jn2_WZ6eFXrBnQ+e6wg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= <rogerj@gmail.com>
To: Rene Bartsch <ietf@bartschnet.de>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:17:00 -0000

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Rene Bartsch <ietf@bartschnet.de> wrote:
> Am 2013-10-31 16:32, schrieb jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu:
>> I am fairly sure that this is outside the scope of this WG. I'm not sure
>> where
>> is; perhaps someone who's more familiar with the current broad scope of
>> IETF
>> efforts can point out the appropriate place for that.
>>
>> Obviously, if personal PI blocks happen, they will need some sort of
>> identity/location suppport to make them work, but LISP is only one
>> possibility
>> for that.
>
>
> I see the scope of this experiment to create an OSI-layer 3.5 which inserts
> an identity-location abstraction between OSI-layer 3 and 4 - which just
> means it creates end-to-end connectivity using roamable identities. And if
> improving communication and boosting the economy by consumer roaming is a
> by-product, we should jump at the chance.
>
> And experimenting with a dedicated EID-prefix will help us to find ways to
> aggregate routing(-tables) to run a infrastructure with so much expected
> endpoints smoothly.

I must admit I wrote the outline of the mgmt-draft on purpose in a
quite generic way so it is possible to use it without LISP.... it
would be really stupid (I think) to lock it to LISP use only. Does any
of you know what the future might bring? This might be the best idea
in quite some years for all we know.


However, as pointed out by Dino and Noel, the point with this
experiment is quite well defined, the text in the draft might not be
perfect so good have this feedback:-)




And about Sander Steffann's problem:
"I understand what the technical idea is. There are already EIDs out
there (including my own network) that are not in any special prefix.
Therefore "address is in special prefix" != "address is an EID".
Unless you break LISP for already existing sites I don't see how
having a special prefix is going to help in (correctly) determining
whether an address is an EID."

The _big_ difference between EID's out there today, and the one from
this new netblock are that any system should _know_ by matching the IP
that this is EID space, and by that know how to handle it.

If traffic grow as everyone predict, and continue todo so, optimizing
the handling of LISP EID's is probably a very good idea.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no