Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DB31B30BC; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gkNDaR67Zkz; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 997621B30C2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:09:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1950; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455642545; x=1456852145; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=09cO2coEtANamguO6aHtgpDBZXYrokTsDD2ZWsv9NFI=; b=ZRPEKVQ8E7HPxozQCL2ZcLNdEzGioc4JEwhwg/Lz1fusZNejPAN0mKAj LMe0pCnk16TUtEoBbGrH/EVIpR2kVJSuZbmrrE+UWnWiB8BWe8uEf0tYO +RbCcB2sbF8L9F88YS8k/yfNU414hhAo87krHCM1X6vQJi8DNSusQzkMj o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ALBQBoV8NW/4oNJK1dgzqBPwa4FoIhg?= =?us-ascii?q?WeGDQKBOzoSAQEBAQEBAYEKhEIBAQQ6PxACAQgYHhAyJQIEAQ0FiBq6fwEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXhhGENYhsAQSSb4QQAY1YjnOOPwEnAjmCAhkUgTRqh?= =?us-ascii?q?yMkGXwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,456,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="239035033"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Feb 2016 17:09:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1GH94QT026276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:09:04 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:09:04 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:09:04 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRaEHsoX4wm6EbUU2zdG+H0868d58u3uQA//+3JwCAAJShAP//zwYA
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:09:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D2E8C10F.110A4D%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net> <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com> <56C33A70.3080307@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <56C33A70.3080307@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <BB724E204246B843A96BE8C29B5E2079@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/UKqwCSe0Tk1DZU3E9jZ2ppTm3As>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:09:09 -0000

On 2/16/16, 10:04 AM, "iesg on behalf of Brian Haberman"
<iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

Brian:

Hi!

>Hi Alvaro,
>
>On 2/16/16 6:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Luigi:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> ...
>>>
>>>> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be
>>>>successful
>>>> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a
>>>> permanent
>>>> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How
>>>> should
>>>> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
>>>> successful?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a
>>> permanent allocation is needed.
>> 
>> I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from
>>there.
>> 
>> I still think there should be some indication of what is success.  Is it
>> related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the
>> advertisement of those allocations?  The use of those allocation in
>> production?  All/none of the above?
>> 
>> IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue
>>or
>> not, there should be some criteria to consider.
>
>The original request was for a permanent allocation from IANA. During
>the first IETF Last Call, there was significant push back on that. The
>result was to request a temporary allocation that expires in a set time
>period. After that, it would be up to the IESG to determine if the
>allocation should be made permanent or retired.
>
>I viewed that compromise as saying that the IESG in 2018 would determine
>the criteria for making the allocation permanent or not.  This may be
>worth discussing in detail on Thursday.

Sure.  

I don't feel comfortable not having a pre-determined criteria to start
with.

Thanks!

Alvaro.