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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:00:21 -0500 (EST)

> From: <[email-masked]>

    > the routing integration between none-LISP and LISP internet, how are
    > that going to work? The current document isn't clear enough on that as
    > I see it.

The way the routing will work would take a couple of PhD theses to fully
cover (I know of one that's already underway). So it's not really a topic
that can be covered in this ID.

Adding to the complexity is that if LISP becomes widely deployed, how the
routing works will likely change over time; in the early stages, when there
are small islands of LISP, it'll be one thing; later on, when there are
islands of legacy stuff, it'll be totally different. Etc, etc.

    > Address these thing somehow in the document, even just mention that
    > it's subject for other document and I'm happy... :-)

The IETF used to have this concept of 'rough consensus and _running code_';
i.e. we tried stuff out to see if it works. When did we change into an
organization that had to have every 'i' dotted, and every 't' crossed, before
we could move an inch? (Saying 'just refer to the document where it is
covered' doesn't help, if the other document isn't written yet.)

All this ID is trying to do is allocate a rather modest chunk (~ one quarter
of one tenth of one percent - .025% - if I've done the math right) of address
space for an experiment; exactly how it will be best used, and what the best
allocation process is, is to some degree part of that experiment.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:36:32 -0500 (EST)

> From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>

    >> So it has transferred costs for communicating with site X from
    >> 'everyone with a core table, everywhere in the entire network' to
    >> 'just the people who are actually trying to communicate with site X'.
    >> This is bad... how?

I didn't see an answer to this question (which is not at all LISP-specific -
rather, it's a general observation about the allocation of overhead costs in
a network). Why should site B, which _never_ talks to X, have to pay, so that
site A can talk to X?

    > edge sites have to buy more routers with newer functions.

???? Each vendor will have its own answer to this question, but the LISP
software suites I know of are new loads for existing router hardware. Do you
know of a LISP package which only comes with new hardware?

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:42:55 -0500 (EST)

> From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>

    >> Allocation != reservation.

    > You're hairsplitting on semantics in a way that is mostly unhelpful to
    > the discussion at hand.

I _thought_ that the point of the messages from Geoff and others (who were
questioning about how there were no details in the document of how the
allocation would work) was about _how_ the space was to be handed out - to
which the allocation/reservation distinction _is_ important.

	Noel