Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 22:16 20-11-2012, Geoff Huston wrote:
The guidelines for IP address allocations were documented in RFC2050,
adopted in November 1996 as a Best Current Practice. This document

Some parts of RFC 2050 could be considered as Historic. As a FYI there is only one IANA policy about IPv6 [1].

It is noted that the LISP experiment already makes use of a /32 prefix,
"with more than 250 sites using a /48 sub prefix", as noted in
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt. Even with an overall 50% utilisation
rate of this prefix there is scope in the current /32 address block to
address some 32,000 further sites using a /48 sub prefix.

Yes.

If the LISP experiment fills this /32 prefix to such a level of
utilisation then there would be reasonable grounds to make the case that
at such a time the LISP activity would no longer be an experimental
effort, as it would be an instance of an application that makes use of
the global unicast address pool. In this case the provisions of RFC
4773, and the applicability of a special purpose address allocation
would not be expected to apply, as this would fall under the terms of
RFC2050 and the address allocation function would be administered by the
Regional internet Registries, according to RFC2860.

There is ample material in the Last Call comments to generate DISCUSSes. The question is how many DISCUSSes will be filed. It's easier to leave the progress of the draft to a matter of IETF consensus than to invoke the RFC 4773 or RFC 2860. IANA is bound to follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. It is improbable that IANA would invoke the dispute clause.

A possible course of action for the LISP Working Group and the IESG to
consider would be for the existing /32 address be documented as an IANA
Special Purpose Address allocation for use in supporting the current
LISP experiment, and for the LISP advocates to make their case for
particular requirements in the handling of global unicast address
allocations in IPv6 to the regional addressing communities. This would

Anything more than a /32 might have to be a global policy proposal. It would likely take over a year to get such a proposal through all the RIRs.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. Don't boil the ocean to kill a single fish (credits - Noel Chiappa)

1. https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/global-addressing/allocation-ipv6-rirs


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]