On 02/03/2013 18:37, David Conrad wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> After reading your email it is clear to me that the IETF should
>> consider to work with the RIRs instead or going around them.
>
> It isn't "going around" the RIRs. I'm not assuming the RIRs are in the path
> to begin with.
>
> Under which policies would the RIRs allocate EIDs?
A new policy would be needed.
>
> Wouldn't acceptance of EID allocation/registration services require the
> initiation of an open policy development process since EID
> allocation/registration services would be a _new_ service offered by the
> RIRs?
Possibly, but, would it be very different than when RIRs started
allocating IPv6?
Has that open policy development process been proposed in any of the
RIRs yet?
No, but if somebody could just start asking in the RIRs PDP if this
could be a good idea or not.
If LISP has value for the community it may be not very hardto get a
policy.
>
> Do the memberships of the RIRs think that RIR staff should be spending their
> membership fees to provide EID allocation/registration services?
>
IPv6 was free of allocation fees for many years, I do not see why EIDs
could be different, but again, we need to ask.
>> I do not think any technical reason. But as ISP I would prefer to deal
>> with an RIR rather to IANA or to a new entity.
>
> ISPs would be getting locators, not EIDs.
ASNs are different as well. AFAIK you do not need to be a member to get
them in some RIRs.
From the the allocation ISP stand point, locators would not be very
different than ASNs or IP addresses.
I am not in favor or against to RIRs involved in LISP, I just want to
make sure we have all the information before making a decision.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
Regards,
as
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
