Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I thought that after the last round of discussion on this topic we had come to the
point where the WG specified the technical characteristics of the registry
that would be appropriate for support of this experiment, and the IESG and IAB
would direct the IANA as appropriate to operate a registry that was consistent
with this.

I had also thought that in this dialogue between the IESG, IAB and the IANA, the 
RIRs may well be in a position to provide registry support that would be entirely
consistent with the technical requirements to support this experiment.

So from that perspective I had thought that this draft was clear in intent
and suitable to support the experiment. 


regards,

   Geoff

 
On 9 Oct 2014, at 5:51 am, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It would seem to me to be rather odd to spend time working out an agreement for what we want to do with a permanent allocation.  We are defining the rules for the experimental allocation.
> 
> Is there a specific text change that would make that clear enough to alleviate your concern?
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/8/14, 2:49 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
>> Hello Joel,
>> 
>>> The document is very clear that any potential transition to permanent
>>> allocation would have to be discussed and coordianted with multiple
>>> parties, including the RIRs.
>> 
>> Correct, the document is saying this. Maybe I have a different idea of "very
>> clear" though, all it says there must be a discussion.
>> I would prefer a clear statement that these policies are ending either when
>> the EID block experiment ends (obvious) or when the EID block turns into
>> something permanent.
>> 
>> 
>>> Equally, until such time as a permanent allocation is made, the document is
>>> not declaring the RIRs to be "the " allocation authority.
>> 
>> Agree - and I'm not making such a statement.
>> 
>> 
>>> If the RIRs can
>>> and wish to engage in LISP EID allocation in accordance with the policy,
>>> they can.  But the document does not promise the role to them.
>> 
>> If the document deviates from how RIRs operate then the document should not
>> be valid at the point any LISP EID blocks becomes permanent. My opinion.
>> 
>> 
>>> It may, or may not, make sesen if and when we do a permanent allocation to
>>> specify a role for the RIRs.  That however will be negotiated then.
>> 
>> This "may or may not" is the vagueness I mentioned and why I express my lack
>> of comfort with the document.
>> 
>> 
>> Let me word it differently: the EID block as a sandbox for a large-scale,
>> real-life experiment to learn how LISP becomes (or is already)
>> production-ready for the Internet - great idea. Beyond that I don't see a
>> need for anything special or different for LISP and we have working
>> procedures how to allocate/assign address space. This is also the promise,
>> that LISP is blending in.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards, Marc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/8/14, 2:15 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
>>>> Hello Joel, authors and lisp list,
>>>> 
>>>> while I think the document is overall reasonably written it has one
>>>> problem:
>>>> it's bound to an proposed EID address block that has no guaranteed end of
>>>> life.
>>>> 
>>>> If this experiment would clearly terminate after 3+3 years then I would say
>>>> it's good to go. It's not the way the RIRs have written their documents
>>>> but I
>>>> think that's okay for a experiment and a 6 year time frame. But the
>>>> proposals
>>>> allow the requested /32 EID block to be turned into something permanently.
>>>> For a permanent EID block it's reasonable to assume the RIRs deal with the
>>>> allocation/assignment work ([1]) and then the document would need more
>>>> alignment with RIR policy documents. A simple example would be the
>>>> language,
>>>> "allocation" is used throughout while "assignment" is only mentioned in the
>>>> Introduction. I checked both ARIN and RIPE and it's clearly defined there.
>>>> It's also going too far in telling IANA to not have a regional policy.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So in short (and in all honesty): not feeling comfortable with the document
>>>> in the context of a potential permanent impact of the document.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Marc
>>>> 
>>>> [1]: if the proposal is to have finally an additional authority beside the
>>>> RIRs for address allocation then I would reject the proposal.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:14:16 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The work on the draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02 seems done and the
>>>>> authors requested a work group last call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This email starts a 14 day WG last call, to end CoB PDT October 22, 2014.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You will find the document here:
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please review this WG document.  Let the working group know if you agree
>>>>> that it is ready for handing to the AD, or if you see issues with it. If
>>>>> you see issues, please be as specific as possible about the problems, and
>>>>> if possible suggest text to resolve them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>> Joel
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>