Geoff, LISP can route the entire allocated address space (but just not requires it to be everywhere). So arguably, LISP can do this at much cheaper cost and complexity.
The reason for a dedicated block is similar to why we have an address block for IPv4 and IPv6 multicast. To experiment to see if a hard-coded block can provide any interesting ideas. That part is the experiment, not whole of LISP proper. Dino On Oct 30, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 Oct 2013, at 2:44 am, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> From: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> >> >>> Yet, one of the main critics during the review was about the size of >>> the block which seems too large. >> >> System Architecture Rule #1: >> >> Any Fixed-Size Namespace Will Eventually Be Too Small >> >> Given that a /12 represents .025% of the IPv6 namespace, _if_ LISP becomes a >> huge sucess, we're more likely to run into SAR #1; and if LISP does not >> become etc, are they really going to miss .025% of a namespace? >> >>> Any thought about a change in the requested EID block size? >> >> I think we got it right the first time. >> > > I don't understand this line of reasoning Noel. > > BGP is a huge success - it appears to route 100% of the address space. If > LISP > becomes a huge success then why wouldn't it route 100% of the address space, > just > as BGP does today? And if it withers and dies then any dedicated address > allocation will be too much at that point in time. If this is all about an > _experiment_ under some form of experimental constraint then what are the > bounds of the experiment? What happens at the end of the experiment? Why > would there > be a continuing need to corral LISP into its own dedicated corner of the > address > space? Is there something about scaling LISP to a full unicast routing scale > that > simply does not work? Or is corralling of LISP into a dedicated block of > addresses > unnecessary? Why do I feel that this experiment has not been well thought > through? > Or if it has, then it seems to me that the mapping of parameters of the > proposed > experiment into the words in the two drafts relating to this proposed action > is still lacking. > > regards, > > Geoff > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
