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

Roger Jørgensen <> Wed, 17 February 2016 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45D61AD36F; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KegObxgvJHFq; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B0E1A88D7; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l143so7011005lfe.2; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hq6M+s7DmK4Q4Zu3pn8IiCprbuSpoxvDkSlGa6Pbwdk=; b=ECwHiDzRpkWSxgGzhHf+MarvEKCAJMfmXC1Owpw7cqKdoesviZywgThyMyB29+C7/X 3bwKKtBPLeuhqp4/gSmrjyZLqHEZxdh30qaeY9ZbhYNU7a2DCsvNm8oG4KlxO4y0b08m wnIkso4ZqmLEaNpuhNVaQaHzqytYJlx7j0dXPOFuek8yLdQLWUvoV5lHOfNCLS7KJcsT YjPo5yblyiUGfgWLRxGN+0AMuQK/z1xBbGrBaoPdG43gCOsn7y3qKT6z9mCRoJ8SdGvU MiLzKps+G89yn/z1p2+m+qdJ41WSZrFPw4VYqH8fdatPZDc96GwQt/L1V3LsEMcUmAHL nsAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hq6M+s7DmK4Q4Zu3pn8IiCprbuSpoxvDkSlGa6Pbwdk=; b=Hij3DvRiC/MLCOgCDAVUJBDY8aUj85dhngCyaxceN/ZGcFMgzxiUnHSdDzaUqM8G/H p2QUyIVVWQ5Fe4tnVdBlTZrq+ajOQYZFWeBXyR/SlK84tjKp+K2MVyrtWjBeXMaCTNpU LhUyximgYFqz5ZtrOF3WUL31uvu69tHepZF8DBHmMSL5JwVXw6FelLpWSfrcAuKAtNpa fA9u3DTwA5Q0uCn2Z7I9gnerl3F8hOk75VIzUIGCxd4vD0Toqu1OfCcbtwWBwo2twAB0 I1dnbmaHPP+Fq3N0Qsr4thkSA0Epimq4whw/DHDw7hlVJHMi0azu96f7f4Mip7UfhPUY yI0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSRAZRsPf+1CKrpJfZ2ikb6Q78xzPFiD4m+rDFWn0Nx54W3vAa/IXcodUXyOvpbcaq5P5s9gN5oOZKHGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id e6mr285060lfb.91.1455702363359; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:46:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:46:03 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:46:07 -0000

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
<> wrote:
> On 2/16/16, 4:37 PM, "iesg on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
> < on behalf of> wrote:
> Hi!
>>To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years
>>there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent
>>allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend
>>the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every
>>possible situation.)
>>Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other
>>than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent
>>allocation, I don't see much that can be said.
>>If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that
>>after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the
>>usual criteria for such requests.
> The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
> "sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
> if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?
> At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
> experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

I understand what you ask for, but I have no idea on how to formulate such

What I am personally quite sure about is that the amount of
assignment made from this allocation alone will not be a justification for
granting this a permanent allocation. We could end up with very few
assigment but the technical gain is significant.

So, this experiment end in 3years time automatically and before that
LISP-WG will either 1.) let it expire, 2.) ask for an extension  or
3.) ask for a permanent allocation.

For option 2 or 3 to happen someone will have to present a draft that
can justify it technical, or option 1 will happen. Either way we would
have learned something from it I hope.


Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE          | - IPv6 is The Key!   |