Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Thu, 31 October 2013 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.com>
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 CF54311E8268 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Ug-7SNQogW0i for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2115111E8195 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1393; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383248248; x=1384457848; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=kW5XJYNSF5d/FzNdWCeOdejbPJ0j39BPu6CY5jxJMJ8=; b=dDRvzlY0XjS+g8ZTTEVd9vKk0BsjdX5Lmsk60Xy1D25D3wMlPYR9Osxx /D+pdYDw5vD5atEgk6d9MaTAfkyiy5X8R7m0k7D+MSnGEA/SGJegNhjvJ AwgfvZ1mCaa63QTY8GL8xAl1JaQ4Xywl8raTZHA5o/z3k3E7pI4Hr1Wcp w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAG6wclKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL9qgSgWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgiJCERJQIEDgUIh20DCQayew2Ja4xfgj0CMQeDIIEOA4kIjReOPYU3gyaCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,611,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="279146224"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 19:37:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9VJbJoi010585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:37:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.246]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:37:19 -0500
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= <rogerj@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
Thread-Index: AQHO1nCbeX0CPfSd+UWT753ebxAoHA==
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:37:18 +0000
Message-ID: <D84D75F9D0CBB84A862927008B676523392F5A91@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com>
References: <20131031153235.DA90D18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5de387024da61865cc438dea499da279@bartschnet.de> <CAKFn1SEFsHMjjSeLNvq+-uEaTZag+45Jn2_WZ6eFXrBnQ+e6wg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SEFsHMjjSeLNvq+-uEaTZag+45Jn2_WZ6eFXrBnQ+e6wg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <9CD6F0304200294B9C36F1C4CE42F279@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <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 19:38:19 -0000

On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

> And about Sander Steffann's problem:
> "I understand what the technical idea is. There are already EIDs out
> there (including my own network) that are not in any special prefix.
> Therefore "address is in special prefix" != "address is an EID".
> Unless you break LISP for already existing sites I don't see how
> having a special prefix is going to help in (correctly) determining
> whether an address is an EID."
> 
> The _big_ difference between EID's out there today, and the one from
> this new netblock are that any system should _know_ by matching the IP
> that this is EID space, and by that know how to handle it.
> 
> If traffic grow as everyone predict, and continue todo so, optimizing
> the handling of LISP EID's is probably a very good idea.


As long as the system handles sending map-requests for non EID_block prefixes, and interpreting the negative and positive replies, then the overall complexity of the system isn't really changed by the EID_block's existence.  That doesn't mean that it is not a good idea to experiment with this allocation - or that some here-to-now unknown use case will see great benefit by the using the EID_block's assumptions.  I just think we should keep our expectations for the benefits of this block modest.

-Darrel