Dino, On Mar 2, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Who do you think should allocate them?
Without knowing all the management requirements and services necessary to meet those requirements, it is challenging to say. > If we want minimal policy and just need a well known prefix, why can't IANA > just allocate a /16 for the 10 years that Luigi indicated in the draft? One issue I have with the draft is that it appears to start out with "use the RIRs" without considering the implications of using the RIRs or even defining what the RIRs are supposed to do or the limitations on how they will do it. I'd argue the first step would be to define the "minimal policy" to be, e.g.: - allocations MUST be globally unique - requirements for allocation MUST be the same globally, no regional/national/local variation - allocations MUST be <size or way to determine size> - allocation service MUST be provided at no more than cost - registration data MUST be maintained and be made publicly available via <something, e.g., whois> - registration maintenance MUST be provided at no more than cost - reverse dns SHOULD be provided - the service MUST be available <service level commitments> - etc. Once you define the minimal policy, I personally believe the right answer would be to leave it to IANA to figure out how the service which meets that policy should be provided but that's an implementation decision. I don't think the bodies by which service is provided should be defined in the document. >> However, I believe this is putting the cart in front of the horse -- the >> first step should be figuring out what the services are that need to be >> provided. > > Would you agree to this: > > (1) IANA allocates a /16. Not an issue (well, at least for me). > (2) Divides up equally to RIRs. Why? What benefit does this provide? Is it (e.g.) a policy goal for EIDs to have different allocation requirements based on geo-political location of requester? Having _an_ RIR provide allocation and/or registration services might make sense since it already has at least some of the infrastructure to provide those services but this makes the assumption that the RIR's membership thinks this is something the membership fees should pay for. > (3) When RIRs get requests from corporations, they give them /64s (I won't > argue if it is /48, /56, or /64), leaving some holes so subsequent requests > can be best fit to the same corporation. (skipping over a discussion on the need to have contiguous blocks of EIDs for the same corporation) The vast majority of corporations (excluding ISPs) don't know (and probably don't want to know) the RIRs exist. I also doubt they want to get into the whole RIR membership/political world. By putting EIDs in the RIRs, you're forcing those corporations to (a) figure out which RIR they "belong" to, (b) pay RIR fees, (c) potentially (almost certainly in the ARIN region: look what happened with RPKI) enter into Registration Service or other legal agreements, etc. I strongly suspect that particularly for an experimental service, you want a single point of entry into something as simple, low cost, and lightweight as possible, e.g., something like http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/list/ or IANA's PEN allocation/registration service. However, as mentioned, without knowing the requirements, it's hard to say for certain. > Is that too simplistic? And if so, why can't it be. The RIRs aren't simple. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
