Hi, > Donning the brightly coloured LISP Chair hat. > > The document draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt was handed back to the > Workgroup and the document editors following the IETF last call. The LC > prompted interesting feedback and highlighted some issues. > > The Responsible AD and the LISP chairs have discussed the future of this > document. We believe that the future of this document could be best served > by splitting it in two (one that allocates/justifies the prefix, and one > that describes the LISP specific allocation mechanism) and also altering > text to address the concerns raised during the IETF LC. > > However, before the WG starts to rework the document, I would first like to > canvass the LISP WG as to your opinions. > > 1) Should we, as a WG, continue to work on this item? Is it necessary/useful > for LISP?
Yes, I think it can be very useful for LISP. > 2) If so, what direction should the WG take this document so that the LISP > experiment is best served? What I was missing from the text was: - justification for the size of the prefix - allocation mechanism (AFAICT unaggregated /48 per end-site was intended) - description on how to use this prefix - short-term routing strategy / impact on routing table - long-term routing strategy / impact on routing table - migration path between them I think that allocating a prefix without describing how it is going to be used is a bad idea for something as important as LISP. I'm not sure if that should be documented in one, two or more documents... > I'd also like to call on those folks (as Brian did) who offered review of > this document (CC'd here) during the IETF last call to participate on the > LISP mailing list as to its future. Of course! :-) Sander _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
