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

John Curran <> Wed, 23 October 2013 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1964111E823E for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G1HulTYYRFOg for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C590D11E81D0 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1VZ4HC-000FxW-Gf; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:39:30 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: John Curran <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:39:24 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <20131023152549.GN50205@Space.Net> <> <> <>
To: Brian Haberman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Revised Internet Drafts for allocation of IPv6 space for LISP EIDs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:40:05 -0000

On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:36 PM, Brian Haberman <> wrote:
On 10/23/13 11:31 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> 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.

Minor nit in the above: I believe that drafts were sent back to the WG
_primarily_ due to lack of detail about the "experimental" nature of the 
proposed allocation, which made further consideration about the potential
implications rather difficult.  The authors have done significant edits 
as a result, and hence it's probably a good idea for everyone to reread
the drafts and come to their own conclusion.  (This is my main reason for 
bringing the matter to the attention to this list - I am not asserting 
that these are wonderful drafts or that we have a problem, only that full 
consideration should involve a slightly larger circle of folks...  :-)