IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 30 October 2013 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 46F2621E80B6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PyNS7QMhqZxo for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (mail-we0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5EA11E824B for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q58so1475757wes.28 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=aMaPNmc7WsiJqjg5IjCSZBu05GNRpi54oJbcUS+YNAs=; b=YZFm6gj8dn6H+8MexwgDwaPUFU/iwUtpPSPRcZt0k365JAYLykZ67JbPFyfzDLXcC6 ukh9JdlmoKXOWQNjib5wIey5fGlYTHikXpCu6mfwyWXbECE3K213xcpBp9j6IaPHvILn 9Zx77CtiJA3oRUSfp65jVnGh7u40GBBrXw01svTYmNfeZlkkKNIHJHU5SURLMcJNqfZv 15R9hqRVejwK9Z12lKsjkMpJ93XiSEL/U4QVwCkm1DxJZm37lZXKvJbjboTkyO5wpB1B g/zNLsOqtO/6Ajx4Fet5x77vu/4vDgcFPlBExfxEwTpXgi3TLqg9c7wK/BpRMqdraFg4 VXqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQloLmci1UtQrAECXTidQePox3PeSnV+CZhzKYmXdJk9rLP25Hu2CL19tQANvIAL4BSubPv2
X-Received: by 10.194.63.228 with SMTP id j4mr5247698wjs.34.1383147086069; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp164-05.enst.fr (dhcp164-05.enst.fr. [137.194.165.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm16759497wie.7.2013.10.30.08.31.24 for <lisp@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1EEB7D5B-E75E-44F1-BFFB-73DEF54F26E7@gigix.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:31:23 +0100
To: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Subject: [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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:31:33 -0000

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?

Any feedback welcome.

see you next week in Vancouver

Luigi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email