Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Dino Farinacci <> Thu, 31 October 2013 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480E111E822A for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:46 -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 7ggxluBVExhb for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923D411E8233 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k14so3284721oag.1 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:38 -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=uFkXeaSiczdRhv93JkKvYYew1pcZJD67qMtwPY6c07I=; b=RGC6unSanAi0ac9NR97wOvD6foZw4Ac3Ng+Wp3sDdG5diKVZyHoyMng0vPGeJ94Mey +ggxKeYTgsoIi5Ev2ROf0IHYukoP5F8dd8Pce4hJ090B+Fa1uii7pWmkkxTAG4XpwvUn Kyi+tsFQ/CWqvrv5GKu8sGEfCN1+IrXuFHWBqzNG3AufvQQJ3dkNRwMijFN0XUd0s0bp T3GlILnawlxNbPX+4MAHdpuK/M0hEOjCga0uk/pWXCP3LGXro9ROd8A7sYHVssDrYtyK ec3YzzHUyJQqqv3UgwffMk0RBUlivpDxML5bEAhcgZTUVLzdtJBzWG3mVeulchJPasLC /RAA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id fv10mr3217850oeb.44.1383234758011; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z5sm6400134obg.13.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:52:37 -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 11:52:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Rene Bartsch <>
Cc: "" <>
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 15:52:46 -0000

> 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! ;-)

Renne, I am not picking on you but this language seems to be used by a lot of people. So you are just the latest messenger here. :-)

The language I am referring to is "... If LISP fails ..." with respect to what happens with this EID-block. 

We are not saying this entire block is being used for global deployment of LISP.  And no one is saying LISP can't succeed without this block. And no one is really refusing to return the block when LISP succeeds. 

We want to have a block that we can try to do different forwarding decisions on. Trying some new experiments with lookup and forwarding efficiencies. It does not mean that the current forwarding paradigm does not work or cannot work. 

We must not and will not require reassignment of addresses to use LISP. So as it has been said before, existing allocations and futures allocations can be EIDs. 

An address becomes an EID when it no longer is advertised by an edge BGP router (from a tail or stub portion of the Internet topology).