Hi Brian, thank you for the review. Few comments inline.
On 30 Aug. 2012, at 15:31 , Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so I typed too soon... > > On 8/30/12 9:00 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> All, >> As a part of the publication process, I have completed my initial >> review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block. The draft is well-written and >> concise and I thank you for that. >> >> The only suggestion I would make for this document is to drop the >> use of the 2119 language. It is only used in a few places and those >> uses are not really appropriate for 2119 language. I would suggest >> re-writing those guidelines with normal prose and drop the 2119 >> boilerplate from the document. We tried not to use so much the 2119 language, but if you think it is better to drop it completely, this can be done. But, what do you think about section 8 "Routing Consideration" ? There, with 2119 language, we recommend that routers that do not support LISP do not handle the prefix in any special way. WOuldn't be better to maintain that part? > > This draft would benefit from the addition of enhanced text on why a /16 is > needed. What prefix lengths are expected to be allocated to end-sites? IMHO, this is something that should not be discussed in the document. Prefix length allocation will be based on operational reasons and allocation policies that may change in time. > How many networks are expected to participate in this experiment? Very difficult to say, participants are steadily growing. But let's have a long term viewpoint, if the LISP "experiment" is successful and widely adopted wouldn't be better if the reserved prefix does not have to change and has sufficient space to accommodate any future growth? In addition, I know that all LISP work is marked as "experimental" but let's also keep in mind that there are companies out there that start making business out of LISP. > Should there be a termination date for this allocation? I do not see IPv6 addressing space as a scarce resource, and for the same reasons I cited above I wouldn't put a termination date. Obviously, IANA may decide to allocate the prefix only for a limited amount of time and decide in few years whether or not to make it a definitive allocation. > > To get an idea of what IANA is expecting as far as supporting information for > this type of allocation, I suggest a review of the IANA IPv6 Special Purpose > Address Registry. > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xml > thanks for the pointer. ciao Luigi > Regards, > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
