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 11:12 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 3144D1A86FD; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:12:28 -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 hHDMxW0t-w2j; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B7771A3BA2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:12:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455621146; x=1456830746; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ddwX75ZiBOFxO7jIg4Ftz/Hdoq8/k9y9VkIBdPtXkJY=; b=jansyw+W+LoQxnwsQp+M43mkjFsZtoljM6J6t5wsOSekf7n9KJWWyiTO juwY9nD4W37oqiw/Jb4uDzhQ5jA3WHj4XRCcvV/I6QUcgurWG9qboIkWl kh77PkihFtkPRwq5crhCYzP0del3b97V04UmxQPf05AizND2trqklRFdI 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AAAgDLA8NW/4YNJK1egzqBPwa4C4ITA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZ4YNAoE7OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQgEBBDo/EAIBCA4oEDIlAgQOBYgauQABAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4YRhDWIbAEEkm+EEAGNWI5zjj8BHgEBQoICGRSBN?= =?us-ascii?q?GqHYHwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,455,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="71819301"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Feb 2016 11:12:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1GBCPmK032186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:12:25 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:12:24 -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 05:12:24 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: 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//+3JwA=
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:12:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.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: <04B1867E95356641B2513146E45FE7D1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ZA3rxYQa6bvHiF8EPVPUO3gD1ZE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@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 11:12:28 -0000

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.

Thanks!

Alvaro.