Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 15 December 2014 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@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 7765E1A1AEC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 7ZyPzcqLnWqz for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1B61A1AFE for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:13:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3254; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418642022; x=1419851622; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=nM44ZS9/YRY1TyXGTjbiFr3vUquezHkkx/HaHKG8too=; b=AjyfeTqt+exmpt0ITEWll1ObLagGg3PKRuQfsLi1PZT89tUpDUZUphub Cd1gexR1Ge0eCRLtEABMKFIAThdI5V9+MVMUdPF5RIP92rIINcuBiQtAv hayp9b8JEr7QkaqyjtcC+z6JB9rkMfzwYLNICCG2QSA426JdxWslAP2I1 I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMEAA7CjlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABahzbITAKBLwEBAQEBfYQNAQEEI1UBEAsEAQkTFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiCi8FZYMAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF49yB4JogUEBBIwcgzCBJ4V+gQuEbiFGilcig209gnMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,579,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="274810055"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2014 11:13:40 +0000
Received: from [10.61.198.133] ([10.61.198.133]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBFBDeYX031391; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:40 GMT
Message-ID: <548EC263.9090506@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:13:39 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <D9D776FF-5F0A-4C36-988B-5ECB045CC596@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <D9D776FF-5F0A-4C36-988B-5ECB045CC596@gigix.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="v2KSmjFP7rOPNMcL1ptA84RAnOsckLAPa"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/UUh59w8mpC-hh-7WfIwmpux9UWo
Cc: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03
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: <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: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:46 -0000

Hi Luigi & Joel,

I read this document.  I support its advancement.  I do have a comment
on the following text:
>    3.  When an EID prefix registration is removed from the registry,
>        then the reuse of the EID prefix in a subsequent registration on
>        behalf of a different end user should be avoided where possible.
>        If the considerations of overall usage of the EID block prefix
>        requires reuse of a previously registered EID prefix, then a
>        minimum delay of at least one week between removal and subsequent
>        registration SHOULD be applied by the registry operator.


It seems the preference here is that no addresses be reallocated unless
the block assigned has been exhausted.  Maybe just say that?

Eliot