IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 08 October 2014 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 4037B1A02D2 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 7BnpXZplvq-0 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43321A029D for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v10so7352095pde.6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=bau2MJcysDhy2FOFeVlTpbPTZxwxiy+onxCIZA4NjPg=; b=h9LW/GV7f+F2z0vu26VO47VeuRE2rjybPAGzcjMuP0rR2xAZ7FYpiOIKAFPynqujyu XDMx6Wfqbr/FstcNHj6eYuS3RC80zSglZ8SHzB36WkEcAbuHRKFJf/i5yN5W/OmlFmLh +BXlDUt2Q6eXFj7hBhNyU6e6OEK/wsmsrLSNbr74aehIsFi2XsGR7xffN3H/YCi1f/Rr ThHYim8gjwsPJOu7y4VLscZ/4nHBcNq4MS3o3IxdygqNP1Cuq3R+ttr0etv88T/HawgU nxjC8Q6pK9ZTeNlLmMhfkRuObZeygLVkcpI89VVkqmnmfffKOizqgZHRE6pj0f0MvvyA +epw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlw6iwnDQV3unkrkDdxCRFO4GiMJvkw5jp+UwI/wcLDRiZuIBDDbzkhGEyg4e3wil9z6sOC
X-Received: by 10.70.30.132 with SMTP id s4mr13865714pdh.96.1412799126275; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.11] ([73.162.11.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fg1sm715777pdb.91.2014.10.08.13.12.05 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141008114923108851.765e002a@sniff.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:12:03 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5109D77D-96A0-4796-A646-7A11DC68CC24@virtualized.org>
References: <543538A8.30405@joelhalpern.com> <20141008111526504441.351ecc0f@sniff.de> <54358282.30905@joelhalpern.com> <20141008114923108851.765e002a@sniff.de>
To: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ud8YuONcZ5Z3IFBpuUnBXKkVXFc
Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02
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: <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, 08 Oct 2014 20:12:08 -0000

Marc,

On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de> wrote:
> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

IP addresses allocated by the RIRs assume hierarchy to facilitate the scalability of the routing system.  LISP EIDs do not have any requirement for hierarchy. The policies and processes appropriate for the allocation of IP addresses do not appear to me to necessarily be applicable to the allocation of LISP EIDs.  If LISP is successful, whether the RIRs choose to become LISP EID allocators is likely a business decision they’ll need to make.  I personally do not think it appropriate to assume they will make that decision.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email