Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gih902@gmail.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 010C011E8254 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6H-IpNMsJb9D for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB3B11E813A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x18so4935630lbi.16 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:34:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/+taBGB2bCHw6mpRzUfFml+qj7Ou8XvRcl477OLBgmE=; b=XMV3aC8dz5bqzBQs+a1m9Yg1IlZx1c+scj+3ywFMOtzTsE8Qq3ynvKfka9gBE8M4sR AmhUSMjeD0cNmnytrwRz+TK2GweK+xzPUryntdKFfg6bEdUaiTPguU0Vl03GPs4t6NgZ lbEIeNZmJAta9CAipytpnbbu0CM/irlDfK3rF9OkfWoy0+QXZ9QTjZ9ozswMOK/W8jiX cDTlBPPYh0lhqZJF4rhUrol9NH+60iZ8OqVC/sFEIOHbn5iKZST2PjUWgYOynyyVFyuf 2J66a/qFw1N5l2wOXS4UNChbb4BiwZ7vEvACb+X6jpHOdOmhDj3kqDk7XRqWjd+5U/VU psPA==
X-Received: by 10.152.9.2 with SMTP id v2mr2029laa.40.1383521682843; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-b07f.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b07f.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.176.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a9sm20012575lae.9.2013.11.03.15.34.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98A53C30-74A2-4776-A5C9-8F124D3F74B4@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:34:39 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <41A7CEBF-71E5-419A-A418-2E74A9618B01@gmail.com>
References: <20131031151830.55F9618C168@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <EA0CEAB9-BD0F-4278-BE30-6D6DB7E7B624@steffann.nl> <FC33A2A0-45EA-424B-8F37-D479131AEDD4@gmail.com> <52728FCF.2060603@joelhalpern.com> <A3459787-CCEB-4037-9005-81F51C6ABFCC@gmail.com> <52734FA6.4040003@joelhalpern.com> <FC03B84E-350E-4A52-84A9-44518862B5D7@gmail.com> <52753A16.5050906@joelhalpern.com> <98A53C30-74A2-4776-A5C9-8F124D3F74B4@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:38:01 -0800
Cc: LISP mailing list list <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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:34:45 -0000

On 3 Nov 2013, at 5:09 am, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

> So it appears that:
> 
> (1) People are all for experimenting.
> (2) People may be all for allocating a block if it is not too large.
> 
> So would it be easier to swallow if we just request a /32 or smaller block. 
> 
> Are we just arguing over size?
> 

(speaking personally) Yes.


> If the experiment proves we need to do something in production, then we go get larger blocks as Joel indicates. And if the experiment is complete and say we don't need a well-known block, we return the /32.
> 


And that is something that I would be perfectly comfortable with.


Geoff