[Forked from thread "Please respond: Questions from the IESG..."]
David Meyer wrote to Jari Arkko:
What I objected to was the development of allocation guidelines
(e.g.,
RIR rules, block sizes, addressing plans, etc.) at this stage.
You continue to say that but you haven't told us why. Can you explain
your position beyond just saying "its premature"?
Dave and all -
The reason why LISP-related address allocation guidelines should be out
of scope is because they could potentially lock operators into deploying
LISP for reasons unrelated to routing scalability. To exemplify, take
EID prefix allocation guidelines: The reservation of a dedicated EID
prefix would necessitate the deployment of LISP by those who want a
share of the reserved address space. The reserved address space might
be highly desirable, like it would be if it was taken from IP version 4
(e.g., from 240.0.0.0/4). Thus the address allocation would constitute
an unwise incentive for LISP deployment.
Address allocation guidelines are hence of much different nature than
specifications and experiments, which alone won't affect the real world
unless the protocol in question yields direct benefits for the deployer.
What the IETF should avoid is taking measures, such as defining address
allocation guidelines, that could indirectly and accidentally
incentivize the deployment of an experimental protocol for which there
are no clear direct deployment benefits.
I noted that you, Dave, have removed the work item on address allocation
guidelines from the proposed LISP working group charter. This is good.
- Christian
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
