Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF54311E8268 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ug-7SNQogW0i for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2115111E8195 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 19:37:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:37:19 -0500
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= <>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
Thread-Index: AQHO1nCbeX0CPfSd+UWT753ebxAoHA==
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:37:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 19:38:19 -0000

On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Roger Jørgensen <> 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.