Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 31 October 2013 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 7CB3311E818D for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iJKl9ZrkxMI3 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5123111E80DE for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991465F; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:31:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9hGx8fNmQZFY; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:31:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BEBB55; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:31:11 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <FC33A2A0-45EA-424B-8F37-D479131AEDD4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:31:10 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87ED0701-79BC-4BA4-97F0-054EABAAB696@steffann.nl>
References: <20131031151830.55F9618C168@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <EA0CEAB9-BD0F-4278-BE30-6D6DB7E7B624@steffann.nl> <FC33A2A0-45EA-424B-8F37-D479131AEDD4@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, 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: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:31:32 -0000

> I'll explain one experiment and will be crystal ear about it. 
> 
> (1) We want to have a LISP site send to both LISP sites and not LISP sites. 
> (2) We want an ITR to do mapping database lookups when the destination address is an EID. 
> (3) We want the ITR to forward packet s by doing a traditional FIB lookup when the destination is not an EID. 

I understand what the technical idea is. There are already EIDs out there (including my own network) that are not in any special prefix. Therefore "address is in special prefix" != "address is an EID". Unless you break LISP for already existing sites I don't see how having a special prefix is going to help in (correctly) determining whether an address is an EID.

> Good Zen?

Sorry, still not (yet?) liking this idea.
Sander