On 08/01/2013, at 9:34 PM, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Terry, > At 22:03 07-01-2013, Terry Manderson wrote: >> 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? > > The work item seems useful. > >> 2) If so, what direction should the WG take this document so that the LISP >> experiment is best served? > > The problem is justifying the IP address space allocation and explaining how > it will be managed. > > My guess is that the working group took an ORCHID approach (copy and paste > :-)). I suggest dropping the idea of calling it a very large-scale > experiment. The unstated problem is about politics. I suggest taking a look > at draft-lear-lisp-nerd-09. It contains a good discussion of operational > models and the trade-offs. >
I was on the IAB at the time that ORCHID was being considered - the issue there was to find a balance between enough bits for acceptable crypto and basic conservatism in the absolute size of the request - at the time a /28 appeared to be a suitable compromise considering that this was an experiment. Given that this is an experiment and that the transition from experiment to widespread deployment may well entail renumbering (as was the case with the 6bone) then one approach may well be to use a modest prefix that has a limited capacity that would force renumbering in the shift from experiment to widespread adoption, if such occurs in the future. Geoff _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
