On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Geoff Huston <[email protected]>
> > 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
>
> Sorry, but I don't think that's what's happening here (at least, not in a
> simple form).
>
> The thing that's different here is that (in my limited understanding of how
> this space is to be used) the _code_ is different depending on whether the
> destination is in this space or not. So there are major, real costs to be
> paid in changing the block of space used, later on. Its those costs we are
> interested in avoiding, _not_ just 'let's not have to come back and allocate
> more space later'.
>
> (And the reservation/allocation distinction above is my attempt for all sides
> have their cake here, and eat it too.)
In section "3. Rationale and Intent" in the draft there is this part:
The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is
recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the
router hardware. "
I understood it that it will never be put directly into code, just in
the configuration. That's why I suggested to change this from
"recommanded not to hard-code in any way"
to
"MUST NOT be hard-coded in any way"
Still your argument are valid, it's hard to change it later on but it's doable.
--
Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE
[email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected]
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
