From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
*please*please*please* study what happened to 6to4 and the
2002::/16 prefix before continuing this discussion.
The problem there was that the design of 6to4 assumed, and relied on,
altruistic cooperation between operators, to ensure that there was a
useable route to 2002::/16 *everywhere* in the
IPv6 network. That assumption was naive and led to black holes.
[WEG] The other problem with 6to4 is that by the time we tried to shut it down
because we determined that it wasn't working acceptably and/or had fatal flaws
in its design, there was a small (but extremely vocal) group of people who
basically said "you can have 6to4 back when you pry it from my cold, dead
fingers!!" -- perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone if you can convince
those same people to let you repurpose the 2002::/16 space for LISP?
*ducks* :-)
More seriously:
I echo the concerns that others have raised about the questionable
justification for a /12 or /16, the limited details around how allocation and
management might work, and the recommendation to go talk to the RIRs and learn
how address allocation might work so that you can give them helpful
recommendations when (and if) it comes time to write RIR policy to manage this
space. I'd rather this not be deferred to a later document, because there is
little incentive to complete such a document once the allocation is already
made. Either you know how this will be used and can articulate it, or you
don't. If you don't, you aren't ready to request it.
Additionally: The LISP documents are classified as experimental (though this
one is not...). Therefore I see two possible solutions that don't appear to
have been discussed yet:
1) the RIRs have existing policy regarding experiments (e.g.
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eleven ). You might consider looking at
those policies to see if getting a direct allocation from one or more RIRs for
your experiment would be a workable solution, rather than locking space into
this via IANA.
2) Request the space (with improvements to the request as stated above and
elsewhere in this thread) but include a sunset date for the allocation from
IANA. If the experiment is successful, the expectation is that you will write
proposed standard drafts refine the implementation and to make it not
experimental, and you can make the IANA allocation permanent at the same time.
If the experiment is not successful and this space is no longer needed in a few
years, we don't have to fight a small vocal minority to shut it down. (c.f.
RFC3701). While I'm *less* worried about us "wasting" IPv6 space, it's not
infinite, and I'm having visions of the IPv4 Class E space, where we have this
sizable chunk of addresses allocated for a special purpose that 10 years from
now could (and should) be used for something else, and inertia means that they
never do, filed under "it seemed like a good idea at the time..."
Wes George
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.