Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 31 October 2013 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 B275121F9DCF for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 7ILdsCEw4Nkt for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9422911E825F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D2A9D18C097; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131031165724.D2A9D18C097@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 16:57:30 -0000

    > From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>

    > I don't see how having a special prefix is going to help in (correctly)
    > determining whether an address is an EID.

It doesn't - because is not intended to.

The question it will answer is 'is there some benefit to having 'facial' EIDs,
as opposed to only having EIDs for which the only way to tell if they are EIDs
is to look them up in the mapping system'.

    > Sorry, still not (yet?) liking this idea.

I'm not sold on it yet either. (Like I said before, we'll have to support
non-facial EIDs 'well' if the overall system is to be a success - so will
these be enough 'better' that there will be some benefit to having them?)

But I think we won't know one way or the other unless we play around with
them, and see if we can develop some good uses for them.

I'd like to make an analogy to LISP itself. In the early days, we thought up
a lot of use cases (e.g. provider independece, multi-homing, etc). However,
now that we have a fair amount of deployment, it turns out the be the most
popular use-case (at the moment) is one that didn't get a lot of attention
back them - VPNs.

Sometimes you just have to try things to learn more about them.

	Noel