Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF95A21E80DC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:58:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kgYbDjfIQ+jt for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA36F21E8118 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x10so5986472pdj.40 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:58:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=mcIa32tYF7jgRRabFf1+LeT0NWYK/rOOi8KN3HBsKS8=; b=EGciWc4AWBSfBhcENEjx6aTpCSgbaoPNoPO+/j3yN5vsVnjSQlU+otOGPNKuQwRAQ0 /TBNbn7xjeNww1biFHJHFr29dtBTkYxoyXFcK2kdetJTSXeVnCQyRdqmMmtl6L41A/lJ LF7ogFoPPjzUOaU0Al/6MS8UvZa384Q3SebuwtJSpy08X3LR7PsikY364sC5WSqTM5RR DpEYYZC3s5EtjaMV6wTQLijmHCpCRioKuiT/boRbE0gnyN+pPAKbgT2vmZIwVPOCFtot 0n1zwQwrrTZgmATXhIrUoepBMitxW0bNh8riBidmKHfUOjEeJDDGzIkoU8CQC9NHoH60 4hVg==
X-Received: by 10.66.170.138 with SMTP id am10mr14637157pac.51.1383523132400; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.6.164.76] (mobile-166-137-177-001.mycingular.net. [166.137.177.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zq10sm28777513pab.6.2013.11.03.15.58.51 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B511)
In-Reply-To: <41A7CEBF-71E5-419A-A418-2E74A9618B01@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:58:51 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8F2ADB02-08FC-4285-B231-DCF2A7F2A46B@gmail.com>
References: <20131031151830.55F9618C168@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <EA0CEAB9-BD0F-4278-BE30-6D6DB7E7B624@steffann.nl> <FC33A2A0-45EA-424B-8F37-D479131AEDD4@gmail.com> <52728FCF.2060603@joelhalpern.com> <A3459787-CCEB-4037-9005-81F51C6ABFCC@gmail.com> <52734FA6.4040003@joelhalpern.com> <FC03B84E-350E-4A52-84A9-44518862B5D7@gmail.com> <52753A16.5050906@joelhalpern.com> <98A53C30-74A2-4776-A5C9-8F124D3F74B4@gmail.com> <41A7CEBF-71E5-419A-A418-2E74A9618B01@gmail.com>
To: Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:58:55 -0000

Thanks for reply Geoff. 

Closer to rough consensus,
Dino

> On Nov 3, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 3 Nov 2013, at 5:09 am, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So it appears that:
>> 
>> (1) People are all for experimenting.
>> (2) People may be all for allocating a block if it is not too large.
>> 
>> So would it be easier to swallow if we just request a /32 or smaller block. 
>> 
>> Are we just arguing over size?
> 
> (speaking personally) Yes.
> 
> 
>> If the experiment proves we need to do something in production, then we go get larger blocks as Joel indicates. And if the experiment is complete and say we don't need a well-known block, we return the /32.
> 
> 
> And that is something that I would be perfectly comfortable with.
> 
> 
> Geoff
> 
>