Hi Luigi,
At 06:32 15-11-2012, Luigi Iannone wrote:
thanks for the comments. Few answers inline.
Thanks for the response.
Well, if we go along that road we should put the whole document in a
single "IANA Considerations" Section. ;-)
Yes. :-)
Actually the current IANA Considerations section states the same
request but does not specify "/12".
You are right that it should be clearly stated, to make the document
coherent. Will fix.
Ok.
It refers to the IANA allocation policies. May be it could be
changed in the following way:
If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the
address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA
according to its current allocation policies."
Would that work?
Not yet. :-) You did not answer my question about which IANA
allocation policies the draft is referring to.
I agree that this point has been not discussed thoroughly, the idea
is not to create any new "manager", rather to make ISPs (or whoever
interested in deploying LISP) to request an EID address
sub-block as they do with usual prefixes.
I'll comment below.
Well, this is standard, to have a reserved space we have to go
through the (now called) "IETF Review", which is what we are doing ;-)
What the draft is doing is reserving address space. According to
Section 10 address blocks from that reserved address space (the /16)
will be assigned through IETF review. I read the previous comment as
meaning that the EID address block will be assigned to ISPs by
RIRs. There isn't any mention of that in the draft. Even if it was
mentioned it is doubtful that ISPs would be able to get that address
space assigned through RIRs at present. The issue was mentioned in
the AD review [1]. I didn't find any discussion of that in the LISP
mailing list archives.
According to the LISP Charter the document is to request "address
space to be used for the LISP experiment as identifier space". The
draft is reserving a /16 and there is scope to have that extended to
a /12 in future. This goes beyond the usual experiments. There
isn't any discussion of how the ip6.arpa delegation will be
handled. There isn't any discussion of how long the experiment will
last. I understand that IPv6 is not a scare resource. However, that
is not a reason for handing out address space and leaving it to
someone in future to figure out what to do if this becomes a problem.
I haven't seen anyone asking why the document is not a BCP. If the
aim is to have:
"Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best
current practice for traffic engineering and security."
I think that the document might have to be a BCP. It would be good
to be clear about whether the address space should be listed in the
IANA IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry.
Section 5 mentions that "The working group reached consensus on an
initial allocation". Could the document shepherd upload the write-up
and provide some details about that?
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03848.html