Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Dino Farinacci <> Thu, 31 October 2013 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9104621E812F for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+rXy6S8SnOz for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5562821E8108 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id uy5so3845828obc.10 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vfiruZSRcNtZPPKcbi+xsHVTeArMOYBLEoqp2nvQd54=; b=Gcgl+2mqo6brqouSua+st9ZRnrbraW4JeZB93rvyl65TjoOqdOGvwsJsEMPYIerIZj tA5UraABfcbgdDJGi7OuPzTtVlTE/n6klqW2ZFFg9cXOtLSTJPcc6yI45HzgRtLoG+00 4ZGW+od+GFh/zKzZX2UYI084lspRbgCZeGqbNw8nO35pI/vbKcMYJHcMT2/cHJKd1Coe eApiOVOL01wL6x+7sOUBlHMQKesc+nSjKj/XrFV9tosCbIBttatqLygN5uJBllQ8nwOS ts6wmncMqJSQ+MZY/SfjAdn+sMnFZvuwoTqSrl4lcUcfUmjW8li/y4Tvvjvqx1ZrC58X ndjA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p3mr131974obm.29.1383261547989; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ru3sm9467179obc.2.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B511)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:19:07 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:19:11 -0000

> Actually, that use case is only helped by the EID block if you can be sure that ALL the destination EIDs it will see will come from the block.

I don't believe so. It could just an efficiency play for one versus the other. 

> Which seems to be impossible to ensure in the general case.  And easy to achieve without an allocated block in many of the special cases.

Well the EID could mean it is behind a NAT and that ITRs should encapsulate to an RTR. Maybe one that is used by a default map-cache entry or a distinguished key on the mapping database. 

See there are sorts of things we could try. Again, "try" here means experimentation. 

Look how the pilot network was easier to debug since we had generically donated by Andrew Partan and how cisco has been renting 2610:d0::/32.