IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 30 October 2013 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 C8AAB11E826E for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ovFL7UM+gLUp for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3747A11E8279 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 587D918C143; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131030154454.587D918C143@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:54 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:46:18 -0000

    > From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>

    > Yet, one of the main critics during the review was about the size of
    > the block which seems too large.

System Architecture Rule #1:

  Any Fixed-Size Namespace Will Eventually Be Too Small

Given that a /12 represents .025% of the IPv6 namespace, _if_ LISP becomes a
huge sucess, we're more likely to run into SAR #1; and if LISP does not
become etc, are they really going to miss .025% of a namespace?

    > Any thought about a change in the requested EID block size?

I think we got it right the first time.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email