Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 16 February 2016 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114A51ACEC5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udwWdOIVOcq3; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA5D1ACEC0; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D41388108; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A273328081A; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:17 -0800 (PST)
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net> <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <56C33A70.3080307@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:04:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8c0P5cjmfmbF9c5ma0NKl3rsm5v1XQsd0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/5mqRnBYj45eiy4s9IvgoOYODeeU>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:04:20 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

On 2/16/16 6:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> Luigi:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> ...
>>
>>> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
>>> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a
>>> permanent
>>> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How
>>> should
>>> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
>>> successful?
>>>
>>
>> This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a
>> permanent allocation is needed.
> 
> I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from there.
> 
> I still think there should be some indication of what is success.  Is it
> related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the
> advertisement of those allocations?  The use of those allocation in
> production?  All/none of the above?
> 
> IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue or
> not, there should be some criteria to consider.

The original request was for a permanent allocation from IANA. During
the first IETF Last Call, there was significant push back on that. The
result was to request a temporary allocation that expires in a set time
period. After that, it would be up to the IESG to determine if the
allocation should be made permanent or retired.

I viewed that compromise as saying that the IESG in 2018 would determine
the criteria for making the allocation permanent or not.  This may be
worth discussing in detail on Thursday.

Regards,
Brian