On 08/01/2013, at 4:03 PM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Workgroup and others,
>
> 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?
EID might not be addresses in LISP terms, but you are using IPv6 addresses,
which come with expectations over the management and behaviour.
I think that its appropriate for LISP to identify address management
requirements and expectations. I think it goes to question 2)
are these EID intended to be individually routed in global-unicast BGP
view, or only visible as an aggregated prefix?
how many EID do people need? do EID have to aggregate, is there any
benefit in EID being more than just unique (ie, unique and growable, or unique
and large/medium/small)
for instance.
>
> 2) If so, what direction should the WG take this document so that the LISP
> experiment is best served?
If you are explicitly addressing this as an EXPERIMENT then you should
objectively address the experimental allocation criteria, which are that you
justify why it cannot fit inside a /32, and recognise that its a time limited
allocation, subject to some kind of renewal.
How many participants in the EXPERIMENT are you trying to cope with?
How large an EID does each participant need? whats the scaling?
If you are attempting to address larger deployment scaling which go beyond the
experiment life, the issues around what KIND of allocation policy applies need
to be explored:
what objective criteria are expected to be applied, to allocate EID to
entities?
is the sole property uniqueness?
>
> 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.
Noted.
-G
>
> Cheers
> Terry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
