[lisp] EID Block Drafts

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 2A77411E827E for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 qq8leETaVtWW for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474F211E823A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0F31C0262 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c213-89-137-101.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.137.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A91E71C0049 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52682C91.20002@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:07:45 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [lisp] EID Block Drafts
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, 23 Oct 2013 20:07:50 -0000

I look forward to discussing these drafts at the meeting.

Personally I am a bit confused and uncertain as to what to think about 
whether the allocation is useful.

The draft starts with some motivations which seem to depend upon 
everyone using IPv6 EIDs from the block, as otherwise it appears that 
the decision can not be made as described

Then it gets to the argument about needing EIDs that are not advertised 
in BGP.  This seems to make sense.  That is where we want to end up. 
And blocks which are not for Internet advertisement are not apparently 
what you get from RIRs or even requests for PI space.

But then I wondered.  What about PITRs?  Even if we say that the EID 
block is for cases where addresses are not in the BGP table, the PITRs 
will need to advertise portions of the block.  As far as I can tell from 
the deployment models, we can not even require that the EID block only 
be advertised as a whole, since there seem to be cases for partial 
advertisement by PITRs that only serve part of the space.

So I am back to not knowing quite what works.
Yours,
Joel