On Mar 12, 2013, at 9:58 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:10 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >> Definitely the case, although it would probably be best to confirm the >> same understanding of "experimental purposes" > > Agreed. > >> In any case, one of the important parts of ICANN's mission is coordination, >> and it would be hard to fulfill that particular role while issuing IPv6 >> prefixes at large without some degree of consultation with the greater >> community. > > Again, my understanding of RFC 2860 is that it is the IETF's role to specify > address blocks that are to be used for experimentation purposes and ICANN, in > its role as the IANA Functions Operator, would be obliged to > allocate/register the block and ensure it isn't re-allocated before the > experiment terminates. Do you have a different interpretation of ICANN's role > in these sorts of situations? > More to the point, what further coordination by ICANN (or the RIRs) do you > believe is necessary/beneficial for a block of IPv6 addresses to be used for > EIDs in LISP protocol experiments? If the EID assignments have potential to impact the ISPs currently using IPv6 (e.g. if such assignments might also end up being used as provider-independent IPv6 blocks by their recipients and show up in the IPv6 routing table), then discussing this with the community in advance is probably a good thing. Each region has its own approach and policies regarding provider-independent IPv6 space, and issuance of IPv6 space (particularly on a flat-basis) via a new process is likely to raise questions which need discussion. I frankly have no idea of whether there would be any real issues or not, but do think that writing up what is intended in enough detail so it can be considered is very important. One tiny example: to minimize long-term growth in IPv6 routing table size, issuance via "sparse-mode" has been done in most cases, whereby space is reserved for future adjacent growth. Lots of discussion took place about this, and it is now a fairly common practice. If EID prefixes are allocated on a simple flat basis, and might be used also as IPv6 blocks, then they do not have the same property if expansion is needed for their IPv6 usage. Is this a problem? I have no idea, but definitely want to make sure that the ISPs who felt it was important in the various regional discussions have a chance to consider this new potential with any EID prefix assignment plan. That's what I mean by saying "coordination"... /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Yeah, with nobody else. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
