John, On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:17 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
My impression (others will correct me if I'm mistaken) is that as part of a transition phase, it would be helpful (required?) if EIDs were routed to enable end sites which have not yet deployed LISP to be able to communicate with sites that have deployed LISP. Maybe(?) something like NPT could be used to ensure that prefixes from the EID experiment block don't cause folks' IPv6 routing tables to overflow, but I'm not sure pushing NPT to get around RIR politics is the best idea. > 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. And this regionalization is part of the issue: what would happen if the outcome of that "discussion" is that an RIR refuses (for whatever reason) to allow LISP experiments? > 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. I'd hope so since the IPv6 /12 allocations to the RIRs by IANA were made with the assurance from the RIRs that they'd be allocating that space via "sparse-mode" (but I digress). > 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? Wouldn't this concern be trivially addressed by having the EID allocator hand out EIDs using the same "sparse-mode" algorithm the RIRs are using? > 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. To be honest, it sounds like you mean "veto" instead of "consider". This would be distressing since one of the long term promises of LISP would be routing system scalability. Of course, from an ISP's (that is, the folks you claim to a "liaison" for) perspective, LISP has the downside that it facilitates end site provider independence so there would be good reason to try to veto LISP experimentation. Not that I'm actually so cynical to think that's the reason for your concerns... :) More seriously, I agree that the experiment needs to be documented along with its potential implications and termination conditions and I'm more than happy to contribute. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
