Hi Geoff, Let’s try to be constructive here, because I have no problem agreeing that the text of the document can be improved, but would be helpful to know where.
You complain about unclear text, but your comments look like being on the same unclear line ;-) On 30 Oct. 2013, at 22:02 , Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > > 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 do you mean exactly by bounds? IMO the real limit is to avoid indicting any more pain in the BGP infrastructure. > What happens at the end of the experiment? Worst case in 3 years the block is back in the free pool. > 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? Noel and Dino gave you long answers on these, I just agree with them. > Why do I feel that this experiment has not been well thought through? Help us to clarify, what we did exactly miss? Or what is the big lack we did not cover? Thanks Luigi > 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
