Hi Dino,
Nothing is coming. Nothing really needs to change.
But if there is anything written up to define allocation procedures, the
RIRs can review such a document.
The main motivation for this prefix is to optimize ITRs so they know that a
destination is in a LISP site. This COULD eliminate a mapping database
lookup for a destination not in this range. Meaning, if a packet is destined
to a non-EID, you may know this by inspecting the address rather than asking
the mapping system.
I don't agree. For example: I'm using regular space for LISP EIDs now, so you
can't assume that if it's not in this block that it's not in the mapping
system...
That is why I capitalized "COULD".
This draft is purely a draft to REQUEST space. There will need to be a
deployment guide on how to allocate EIDs, in general.
And if the RIR system is used every RIR will develop its own policy for
allocating EIDs independently (hopefully based on the recommendations in
such a deployment guide). It will have to be very clear whose
responsibility it is to allocate from this space, and when assigning
responsibility it might be a good idea to make sure they accept that
responsibility too.
Right.
Note that I am not opposing the idea. I'm just trying to make sure this
address space doesn't disappear into a black hole because nobody takes the
responsibility to manage it.
One thing we have to be very careful with here is that EIDs are not
directly allocated/assigned to end sites from this block. That will cause
everyone to independently find (different) PITRs for their space,
Why not?
Because the RIR communities will probably just refuse to allocate from this
space if it means that all those routes end up in the BGP table... They are
already plenty of people that don't like regular PI policies...
You have all the PITRs in the world advertise only the one /12 into underlying
routing.
which will make a mess of the global IPv6 routing table...
And why do you think you need to assign PITRs per sub-block?
I hope that is not necessary, but if addresses are assigned to end-sites
directly in a PI-like way then who is going to provide PITR services for the
users? Someone has to pay the bandwidth cost for operating
PITR services are provide for non-LISP sources to send to these sites. If you
have a well-known defined /12 that all PITRs advertise, then when you allocate
sub-blocks, you don't have to change, reconfigure, or touch the 1000s of PITRs
deployed.
a PITR... And the users of that space want reliability, so they are not going
to rely on the goodwill of some unknown 3rd parties. There is too much bad
experience with 2002::/16 for that.
We do that all the time on the Internet unless you sent this email on a
source-route to me. ;-)
If you see another way that I am missing please let me know! I want this to
work, I just don't see how...
- Sander
Dino