Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Rene Bartsch <> Thu, 31 October 2013 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449ED11E811A for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B8NthuSMzgru for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3175011E80FA for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <>) id 1Vbsef-0005Fz-GG for; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:51:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:51:21 +0100
From: Rene Bartsch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail
X-Df-Sender: cmVuZUBiYXJ0c2NobmV0LmRl
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 13:51:29 -0000

Am 2013-10-30 16:31, schrieb Luigi Iannone:
> Hi All,
> I was thinking that may be it is worth to (re)open the discussion
> about the EID block size.
> Currently we are requesting a /16 and asking to reserve the /12
> covering it. This was the outcome from the WG consensus, hence, it has
> not been changed in the document.
> Yet, one of the main critics during the review was about the size of
> the block which seems too large.
> Any thought about a change in the requested EID block size?
> Should we keep it as it is?
> Should we shrink it? How much?

To which document are you referring? draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt 
proposes /16 with /12 reserved.

Having the possibility to establish global, provider-independant 
network-roaming for consumers with LISP, a /16 with 2^32 /48 will not 
suffice for each natural person on this planet. We already will have to 
assign /56 to natural persons and bigger prefixes to corporate entities 
with /16 only.

In fact I'm already considering the requirements for global, 
provider-independant network-roaming for consumers. In short:

1. Assignments of EID-prefixes should for lifetime, provider-independent 
and remain in force when EID-prefix-bearers change the RIR region.
2. Each natural person can register ONE /56 EID block (256 possible /64 
subnets should suffice for a natural person).
3. Corporate entities can register a reasonable EID-prefix based on 
their size, infrastructure and expected growth.
4. LIRs can charge a reasonable fee once but MUST NOT recharge fees. The 
fee should be low enough to allow any natural person to register a 
5. Bearer of EID-prefixes can select any Map Server service or run it 
themselves to encourage reasonable fees by competition.

And I think /16 is a good start. If LISP fails, the /16 will be usable 
again in 6 years. If it succeeds, IANA will have to hurry assigning the 
/12 block! ;-)

AVM-routers will provide LISP-clients for 50% of the german and 20% of 
the european internet-sockets until end of the year. LISPmob provides 
support for Linux and Android (although Android still requires rooting).