That similar. My point is specifically to stay out fo "who" except for
the root.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/27/2013 2:38 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually Luigi, in my personal opinion:
1) It is not our job or our requirement to involve the RIRs. It is our job
to come up with what we think LISP and the Internet need for EID allocation.
2) I would be really surprised if EID allocation policies were at all
related to current RIR address allocation policies. The behaviors are VERY
different, as are the assignment implications.
Are you thinking something more along these lines
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg04155.html ?
In there I mention the RIR simple because they have the
_infrastructure_ to support the operational side of any delegation,
whois+dns+++...
If we can get it to work any other way, maybe something along domain
names, that is also another option.
--- Roger J ---
Yours,
Joel
On 2/27/2013 6:59 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi,
On 27 Feb. 2013, at 01:46 , Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
As a participant, I have an even stronger pinion on the RIR references
than terry.
I think that the block management needs to define
o who the root is
o what policy we require for allocating blocks to allocators (the root is
not an allocator
o What the behavioral requirements are for an allocator
o are there any special requirements for re-delegating to another
allocator?
o What policies allocators should respect for end site allocation
Once we have this defined, then organizations that wish to participate
can do so. If the RIRs want to come play, they may. If not, then they
don't.
Got it, is what I've also understood from Terry's point.
Again, there was no intention to put work on RIRs back, rather to show
that we can come up with a framework that involves RIRs and is compatible
with current RIRs' policies. (apparently the message was not clear ;-) ).
It comes to my mind the question of what we are going to do with the EID
block if in 10 years the IETF decides that LISP is the best thing ever and
we need to assign the EID block permanently?
Ideas are welcome :-)
ciao
L.
(Repeated for clarity, the above is a personal opinion, not a WG chair
position, nor associated with any other hats I may have.)
Yours,
Joel
On 2/26/2013 7:26 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Speaking just as a WG participant.
I would rather a document like this focus purely on the allocation
criteria that needs to be applied to:
1) An experimental EID block
2) ongoing LISP allocations beyond the life of the experiment
Given the expected (numbering) requirements of a LISP site.
Simply, while it is temping to use the RIRs, and name them, it is not
appropriate in my opinion to assign work to the RIRs. That is the job of
their membership.
Similarly, what policies the RIRs have now are all subject to change
within their own policy development processes. Please don't re-codify
them
here. I would also prefer to see this document take the approach of
defining what is best for LISP, not how can we use the RIRs as an
allocation framework. The concern I have is that if LISP ends up
requiring
something very different to how the RIRs do it - we would be doing a
disservice to both LISP and the RIRs by pushing it that way.
The definition of terms is well stated elsewhere, perhaps you can point
to
those locations?
Cheers
Terry
On 26/02/13 7:59 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <[email protected]> wrote:
FYI a new version is available.
Comments still welcome ;-)
L.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
[email protected]
Subject:
I-D Action: draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt
Date:
25 February 2013 21:47:29 GMT+01:00
To:
[email protected]
Reply-To:
[email protected]
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : LISP EID Block Management Guidelines
Author(s) : Luigi Iannone
Roger Jorgensen
Filename : draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt
Pages : 9
Date : 2013-02-25
Abstract:
This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of
the LISP EID address prefix (requested in a separate document). Such
framework relies on hierarchical distribution of the address space to
RIRs (Regional Internet Registries), who will allocate on a temporary
basis sub-prefixes to requesting organizations.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
