> 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 > allow the existing address policy development process to generate > outcomes that appropriately address the desires and concerns of the > broader community of stakeholders in supporting the potential > requirements of a broad base of deployment of LISP in the Internet's > routing environment. I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I do believe the size of the prefix is less important than having a semantic associated with the prefix. > We do not support the publication of this draft as an Informational RFC. > > regards, > > John Curran, > Paul Wilson, and > Geoff Huston Thanks guys. Dino