Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Sun, 03 November 2013 22:59 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 6B21321E811C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:59:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 y99gN1QkJ86y for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-f49.google.com (mail-bk0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7A521E80EC for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w14so2516726bkz.8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:59:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=oQukREjFiIv9BVnKuuVoWEXwODI5UbH0NlNMKjaH97Q=; b=GIbPqrQ8r/d+H68TgzZeHk/tFC2+mCvFuQ9U01C9abb5ZvwO8y+KbbxnTrNfgUMNY3 FitQjHGcrkt452XL+cfgd2Mg4t+GuHzlLNRjA06ZMcPqp0/cdRTYBszgb9ZaajJNLct0 tSTyZcYBKlZsLMK4oH3nek722AxkcXNvPa6P+zyjPvdPt9QORYC91adlY4NtCQA9sTbg nvJ7LlCrBE68YcgGBCs5GOTlBkCo7dHL+N23dixTBU+Av8cX87qtceHZEPZfNjShLpJQ Z1PSwESSmA6uzHe2JOFVhQLm3UN4W0+R2kUiSZ/rm1oN9IzDbPorlsWgqQUJ7JmylQSS Xrdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmg6RzrjO+KY+I2DnXIQKDihyMNEkhe3bnRHnxnQxcJGvxAXCp4cvFwHQQ4Q4ht7R6oU8fU
X-Received: by 10.204.171.17 with SMTP id f17mr799460bkz.38.1383519549306; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-ac50.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-ac50.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.172.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pk7sm12749701bkb.2.2013.11.03.14.59.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D9628FFC-7769-4CD3-857A-63E826EE7673"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <15CC7F54-075E-4EB8-940B-8DCB198134A2@apnic.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:59:04 -0800
Message-Id: <A238CBE0-DAB6-4E01-8F0A-1C2E23E2B46A@gigix.net>
References: <20131030154454.587D918C143@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <15CC7F54-075E-4EB8-940B-8DCB198134A2@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, 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 22:59:25 -0000

Hi Geoff,

Let’s try to be constructive here, because I have no problem agreeing that the text of the document can be improved, but would be helpful to know where.

You complain about unclear text, but your comments look like being on the same unclear line ;-)

On 30 Oct. 2013, at 22:02 , Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

[snip]

> 
> BGP is a huge success - it appears to route 100% of the address space. If LISP 
> becomes a huge success then why wouldn't it route 100% of the address space, just
> as BGP does today? And if it withers and dies then any dedicated address
> allocation will be too much at that point in time. If this is all about an 
> _experiment_ under some form of  experimental constraint then what are the
> bounds of the experiment?

What do you mean exactly by bounds? 

IMO the real limit is to avoid indicting any more pain in the BGP infrastructure.


> What happens at the end of the experiment?

Worst case in 3 years the block is back in the free pool. 

> Why would there 
> be a continuing need to corral LISP into its own dedicated corner of the address
> space? Is there something about scaling LISP to a full unicast routing scale that
> simply does not work? Or is corralling of LISP into a dedicated block  of addresses
> unnecessary?

Noel and Dino gave you long answers on these, I just agree with them.


> Why do I feel that this experiment has not been well thought through?

Help us to clarify, what we did exactly miss? Or what is the big lack we did not cover?

Thanks

Luigi


> Or if it has, then it seems to me that the mapping of parameters of the proposed
> experiment into the words in the two drafts relating to this proposed action
> is still lacking.
> 
> regards,
> 
>    Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp