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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527121A1ABB; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7CX2ECH60Lj; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CED8F1A1A59; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE8A24EA94; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:37:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1455658671; bh=mBYAeM+nWG4ybddWjbzUK2TOhjMtkDF1Fn/1JX4Nni8=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oc2GHArdqlVl7Gq3hoWH7xIyJgkW4Ec/uXf4hNhPvTrItc+cqAu1uLcUHVF7/8E3a of8JFWQebA8jn4HuseeeNhW5CouSffwTd1+Ay1KY7acyIfTkML9PWRW4VIjj+7oX+t FcsPsOQNrLGMqoCds4rWnGz1fiMdk176PMx5dXWI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 014FE2406EC; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:37:50 -0800 (PST)
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net> <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <56C396A6.1080506@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:37:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/l5G1GqxgfNbWgeB1sWpMwy_x_M0>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:37:53 -0000

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.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/16/16 6:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
>
> Luigi:
>
> Hi!
>
> ...
>>
>>> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
>>> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a
>>> permanent
>>> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How
>>> should
>>> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
>>> successful?
>>>
>>
>> This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a
>> permanent allocation is needed.
>
> I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from there.
>
> I still think there should be some indication of what is success.  Is it
> related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the
> advertisement of those allocations?  The use of those allocation in
> production?  All/none of the above?
>
> IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue or
> not, there should be some criteria to consider.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>