Hi Geoff, thanks for your feedback, few comments inline.
On 9 Jan. 2013, at 21:57 , Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > It all depends on the philosophy behind experimental allocations. If we were > to assume that each and every single experiment in IPv6, including all forms > of cryptographically generated addresses, all forms of transitional > mechanisms, all forms of address plans and all forms of routing experiments > were each to request an experimental allocation that was "once and forever" > and assumed at the outset that the experiment would result in comprehensive > deployment over a network many many times larger than today's then I hope you > can appreciate that we'd not have enough space to accommodate each and every > experiment's requirements in the IPv6 space. > Very true and I understands the concerns. But - here you have made the assumption that all "experiments" are equal. - we are not asking to blindly handout prefixes (otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion in first place) > So the conventional philosophy behind experimental allocations is to use > enough space to allow the experiment to operate and to gain experience with > the technology. If this proves to be useful and taken up by the industry (and > of course this process involves is by no means an assured outcome - quite the > opposite in fact) then its again conventional to look at how to support the > technology within the existing token distribution framework, or whether its > appropriate to make changes to the token distribution framework. Agreed. > Now obviously some proponents of every experiment see universal adoption of > their particular technology as a given, including some LISP proponents no > doubt. So of course we see many (most?) experiment proponents proudly > proclaim that they are uniquely different and obviously their particular > experiment will naturally result in universal deployment, so why not assume > that happy outcome at the outset of the experiment and allocate resources at > a scale commensurate with their no doubt certain universal deployment in the > not-so-distant future? I am now curious: how many people promoting an experiment in which they do not believe and do not see wide deployment did you encounter? What I want to say is that is natural that people pushing for new technology tend to aim high (human nature?). > But wishing it, no matter how enthusiastic you may be personally, does not > make it so. A prudent approach in a space that has seen, and is likely to > see, many experiments proposed, is generally to provision resources to > conduct the experiment at the scale of the experiment and if the experiment > leads to someplace positive then look at what is required if the technology > is to head to larger levels of deployment. > Agreed. > >> The prefix request was written in such a way to reduce renumbering, rather >> making the prefix "bigger" so to accommodate the growth. This would also be >> an easy change, rather then adding different prefix blocks just change the >> length of the existing prefix. > > I am continually confused by the assumptions behind this assertion, and I've > heard this assumption a number of times in the course of the consideration of > this draft. If LISP is so fragile that it requires a very particular deployed > address structure in order to operate, then frankly we could do precisely the > same in BGP and achieve better results because of avoidance of tunnelling. I > find it somewhat strange to see this adamant view that LISP absolutely > requires a uniquely structured address plan in order to achieve any useful > outcome in terms of scalable routing, at a cost of increased latency and > exposure to vagaries of tunnel behaviour, while at the same time ignoring the > simple observation that if one were to do the same surgery on the address > plan in BGP the outcomes would likely to be just as good if not better, > without the negative factors of map-resolution-related latency and tunnelling. May be (or most probably) I am missing something, but if this was true this discussion would not take place. BGP would evolve with the growth of the Internet and RFCs 4984 and 6115 wouldn't exist. > >> >> I think this is something to keep in the future document(s). > > And I strongly disagree with your opinion. If we did this for every > experiment that we encounter that proposes some unique address plan that is > intended to improve security, routing scaleability, auto-configuration, > pre-provisioning, network virtualization, software programability, etc etc, > then once more we are going to find ourselves contemplating address > exhaustion in IPv6 far sooner than anyone would've rationally anticipated. > Yes, as other suggested we can reserve the prefix for a certain number of years and then ask the IETF again what to do. ciao Luigi > Geoff > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
