IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 31 October 2013 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 8501621F9FE9 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FL1IbUOe-eIz for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6BB21E8092 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42BA5A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:41:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BAAzbT6mF5eE; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:41:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93B1D55; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:41:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <15CC7F54-075E-4EB8-940B-8DCB198134A2@apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:41:19 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CCC19030-E29E-456E-8039-192CBEBC3A40@steffann.nl>
References: <20131030154454.587D918C143@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <15CC7F54-075E-4EB8-940B-8DCB198134A2@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
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 12:41:32 -0000

Hi Geoff,

> BGP is a huge success - it appears to route 100% of the address space. If LISP 
> becomes a huge success then why wouldn't it route 100% of the address space, just
> as BGP does today? And if it withers and dies then any dedicated address
> allocation will be too much at that point in time. If this is all about an 
> _experiment_ under some form of  experimental constraint then what are the
> bounds of the experiment? What happens at the end of the experiment? Why would there 
> be a continuing need to corral LISP into its own dedicated corner of the address
> space? Is there something about scaling LISP to a full unicast routing scale that
> simply does not work? Or is corralling of LISP into a dedicated block  of addresses
> unnecessary? Why do I feel that this experiment has not been well thought through?
> Or if it has, then it seems to me that the mapping of parameters of the proposed
> experiment into the words in the two drafts relating to this proposed action
> is still lacking.

This pretty much sums up my feelings about those drafts as well.

Thanks :-)
Sander

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email