> 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.
It is fairly important to recognize that although this draft (and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block])
both indicate that these are temporary assignments out of an experimental
block, the
reality (based on the text at the end of section 3 of the draft and discussion
on this list)
is that we also seem to be planning for a successful experiment, which requires
that the
EID management guidelines specified in this document should be fairly complete
and
robust, providing a suitable framework and requirements for EID management for
the
foreseeable future. Trying to do both of these tasks at the same time
(establishing a
more robust _but still experimental_ EID management framework, as well as
defining
the long-term optimum EID management framework) may be irreconcilable. As just
a single example, the draft indicates "the requester of the experimental prefix
has to
provide a short description of the intended use or experiment that will be
carried out.";
this is a perfectly reasonable requirement when making experimental assignments,
but not (per se) something that we'd want to have in a long-term framework for
EID
management.
In order to understand which of these two goals (experimental or production)
should
take precedence in the drafting of the EID management guidelines, it would be
good
to know some more information about the present EID situation:
1. Is the current LISP Beta network mechanisms for EID block assignment
insufficient for the task at hand (or expected to be insufficient in the
near
future)? Knowing whether we've got a handful of months versus a few years
to work on the EID management requirements may be important in deciding
what can be reasonably included in the scope (and aspirations) of the
requirements.
2. Is it actually acceptable to setup a _truly_ temporary EID management
framework (i.e. with the potential that the assignments would actually be
revoked some number of years from now), or is it true that the EID
management framework being specified effectively "must succeed" in
some form or another, and hence we are really detailing the long-term
architecture and not just an experiment? If this truly is an experiment,
and we will have the freedom to cast it aside and replace it with something
better 10 years from now, that would put the requirements in an entirely
new perspective.
Any thoughts or comments on the above two questions would be helpful... :-)
Thanks!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. This email is composed of 100% recycled
electrons.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
