LISP does not require remembering. And many (100s) sites are using addresses they already have been using pre-LISP from non- corralled allocations.
Dino > On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 15 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working >> Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : LISP EID Block Management Guidelines >> Authors : Luigi Iannone >> Roger Jorgensen >> David Conrad >> Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt >> Pages : 13 >> Date : 2014-02-14 > > > > section4, bullet 5 states: > All allocations (renewed or not, > including delegations and sub-allocations) MUST be returned by 31 > December 2020, in accordance to the 3+3 years plan outlined in > [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. > > > but the text at the end of the section reads: > > If/When the EID block experiment changes status (e.g., to not being > "experimental"), and following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], > the EID block will change status as well and will be converted to a > permanent allocation. > > > Bullet 5 states "MUST be returned" and the later text states "will be > converted to a permanent allocation" > > This seems to be a contradiction. What's the intended plan? > > If the permanent plan is that LISP runs from corralled space, then I am > seriously concerned that this is an admission of failure of LISP from the > outset. I though the object of the exercise was to offer LISP as a routing > protocol with superior scaling properties to what we have now. But if this > entails renumbering the Internet to achieve it, then just renumbering the > Internet so that the address structure aligns with the topology of the > network would allow the existing protocols to also scale - so where is the > "win" in LISP? > > At the very least it would be good for the draft to clarify the directives of > must be returned and the conversion to a permanent allocation. > > But I would also like to understand the longer term issues at play here - is > the longer term plan for LISP to route the Internet's unicast address space > as deployed, or are we truly contemplating a lengthy transition into an > essentially renumbered space? > > 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
