It would seem to me to be rather odd to spend time working out an
agreement for what we want to do with a permanent allocation. We are
defining the rules for the experimental allocation.
Is there a specific text change that would make that clear enough to
alleviate your concern?
Yours,
Joel
On 10/8/14, 2:49 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
Hello Joel,
The document is very clear that any potential transition to permanent
allocation would have to be discussed and coordianted with multiple
parties, including the RIRs.
Correct, the document is saying this. Maybe I have a different idea of "very
clear" though, all it says there must be a discussion.
I would prefer a clear statement that these policies are ending either when
the EID block experiment ends (obvious) or when the EID block turns into
something permanent.
Equally, until such time as a permanent allocation is made, the document is
not declaring the RIRs to be "the " allocation authority.
Agree - and I'm not making such a statement.
If the RIRs can
and wish to engage in LISP EID allocation in accordance with the policy,
they can. But the document does not promise the role to them.
If the document deviates from how RIRs operate then the document should not
be valid at the point any LISP EID blocks becomes permanent. My opinion.
It may, or may not, make sesen if and when we do a permanent allocation to
specify a role for the RIRs. That however will be negotiated then.
This "may or may not" is the vagueness I mentioned and why I express my lack
of comfort with the document.
Let me word it differently: the EID block as a sandbox for a large-scale,
real-life experiment to learn how LISP becomes (or is already)
production-ready for the Internet - great idea. Beyond that I don't see a
need for anything special or different for LISP and we have working
procedures how to allocate/assign address space. This is also the promise,
that LISP is blending in.
Regards, Marc
On 10/8/14, 2:15 PM, Marc Binderberger wrote:
Hello Joel, authors and lisp list,
while I think the document is overall reasonably written it has one
problem:
it's bound to an proposed EID address block that has no guaranteed end of
life.
If this experiment would clearly terminate after 3+3 years then I would say
it's good to go. It's not the way the RIRs have written their documents
but I
think that's okay for a experiment and a 6 year time frame. But the
proposals
allow the requested /32 EID block to be turned into something permanently.
For a permanent EID block it's reasonable to assume the RIRs deal with the
allocation/assignment work ([1]) and then the document would need more
alignment with RIR policy documents. A simple example would be the
language,
"allocation" is used throughout while "assignment" is only mentioned in the
Introduction. I checked both ARIN and RIPE and it's clearly defined there.
It's also going too far in telling IANA to not have a regional policy.
So in short (and in all honesty): not feeling comfortable with the document
in the context of a potential permanent impact of the document.
Regards, Marc
[1]: if the proposal is to have finally an additional authority beside the
RIRs for address allocation then I would reject the proposal.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:14:16 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
All,
The work on the draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02 seems done and the
authors requested a work group last call.
This email starts a 14 day WG last call, to end CoB PDT October 22, 2014.
You will find the document here:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02.txt
Please review this WG document. Let the working group know if you agree
that it is ready for handing to the AD, or if you see issues with it. If
you see issues, please be as specific as possible about the problems, and
if possible suggest text to resolve them.
Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
