Re: [v6ops] Revised Internet Drafts for allocation of IPv6 space for LISP EIDs

"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693CB11E820C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 QBMbsoI2s+Ph for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8111E81DF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t61so1327682wes.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AfoUrAjVXyZx4xUHWrWuygcnae0WuHVZ271AJF8ajU4=; b=ij4JiUvRkLtiYvYrTxiZlxWbVsJZdGlIxeVz/6ZVEMSXznvbjzyucLa5OBTL0Nm0Jg UH6HYX0h3UNEo4i51ukiNwk/3XY3cc2cejKBhynhU4shMpXSEisC8FE9d5qaF8KyaEas jws2s6KjZtBzUgD+7g55ENZJZkewUVgc9jHBFf1E8NRnAZsTuVkV0cV5P5mgmTeB8kY/ RZI3087+nkf8f2OPiPw6FnBQwiiDIgcfZLU7ixmnJStyAPmzDUclXZtHPtnuSfgK4729 Ub94k7nfgU2/ERI00LjzKyJ55+XQPXtAm4b2bD7XsBfe+4EmD+XpURbjYR8k7WM6tJm6 0V+Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.235.138 with SMTP id um10mr3277398wjc.30.1382558460017; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.114.137 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5268232A.2000805@gmail.com>
References: <28CFF7E5-E98E-4D97-B7F4-3A18C255253C@gigix.net> <D62C71FC-306F-4F91-97E2-84D6F64A58A3@istaff.org> <5267E96B.1000802@innovationslab.net> <20131023152549.GN50205@Space.Net> <5267EB60.7080105@innovationslab.net> <CAKD1Yr1SpS0e3qDkZyRsiSB-a_oXCi7nWKe2szxW34mJfhJnxw@mail.gmail.com> <5267ED12.4090602@innovationslab.net> <5268232A.2000805@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:00:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRRFCeT3R=Vp+Y_zhfTcXMRivuKHYDFy3iQkfFmP85dxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Revised Internet Drafts for allocation of IPv6 space for LISP EIDs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:01:03 -0000

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/10/2013 04:36, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>
>> On 10/23/13 11:31 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Brian Haberman
>>> <brian@innovationslab.net>wrote;wrote:
>>>
>>>> "In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
>>>> sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large
>>>> aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed."
>>>>
>>> That sounds very much like a 6to4 relay router, which experience has shown
>>> was an unworkable deployment model. Why is this different?
>>>
>>
>> It's not different.  But, that is the tact the LISP WG is trying to
>> take.  Keep in mind that the referenced draft went through IETF Last
>> Call and was subsequently sent back to the WG due to the concerns raised
>> about routing and potentially creating a parallel address registry
>> outside of the RIRs.
>
> I think there is one difference from the 6to4 case - well, two actually.
>
> 1. A lot of operators learnt the hard way that failing to coordinate
> 6to4 prefix routing between operators caused very substantial problems.
> (And, btw, the 6to4 RFC said that such coordination was needed.)
>
> 2. LISP has grown out of the routing community, so the need for
> operational coordination is presumably understood in that community.
>

Maybe i am wrong, but i have an idea where LISP has grown out of, and
it is not the networks operators that would have to coordinate this to
work.

CB

> Nevertheless, the risk of a failure of coordination seems high.
> But then, it seemed high for BGP4 itself in 1994.
>
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops