Subject: Re: [lisp] #87: On reusing globally routed address block as EID-prefix (comment 11 reported by Y. Rekhter)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:34:01 -0000

#87: On reusing globally routed address block as EID-prefix (comment 11 reported
by Y. Rekhter)

Changes (by yakov@…):

  * status:  closed => reopened
  * resolution:  fixed =>

Comment:

 From the most recent text:

                                            A globally routed address
       block may be used by its assignee as an EID block.  This would
       require coordination and cooperation with the entities managing
       the mapping infrastructure.  Once this has been done, that block
       could be removed from the globally routed IP system, if other
       suitable transition and access mechanisms are in place.

 The last sentence in the above does not clearly identify what kind of
 transition and access mechanisms need to be deployed in order to remove a
 globally routed address block from the globally routed IP system.

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  wmhaddad@…          |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical           |       Status:  reopened       
Priority:  major               |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |   Resolution:                 
Keywords:                      |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/87#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 18:49:32 -0400

Maybe I am missing something, but I am pretty sure that the working 
group deemed, as is appropriate for an experiment, that strategies for 
global transition belong in a separate document.  Those strategies are 
discussed in the lisp deployment draft.

I do not see that anything more would belong in this document.   (We did 
consider simply leaving out the phrase about transition.  I considered 
that would be misleading, as it would be pretending that transition was 
not an issue.  It is an issue.  But it is not an issue to be solved in 
this document.  It is not even an issue to be fully solved in the lisp 
deployment document.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 06:20:56 -0700

Joel,

> this document.  It is not even an issue to be fully solved in the lisp 

I agree that transition is an issue. And if this document is not
going to cover this issue then I would propose to replace

       Once this has been done, that block
       could be removed from the globally routed IP system, if other
       suitable transition and access mechanisms are in place.

with the following

      Specifying conditions under which that block could be 
      removed from the global routing IP system is outside
      the scope of this document. See [LISP-DEPLOYMENT] for more
      details.

Yakov.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 09:32:24 -0400

With your suggested wording, I believe that would be likely to be 
considered a normative reference.
I do not think the coupling needs to be that strong.
So, would it suffice to use the existing wording, but adding the sentence:
     Further discussion of transition issues can be found in
     [LISP-DEPLOYMENT].
?

The difference being that this wording needs only an informative 
reference, while being helpful to folks, without producing further 
delays in processing.  In this case, that would seem to be sufficient.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 07:05:47 -0700

Joel,

>      Further discussion of transition issues can be found in

How about use the existing wording, and add the following

      Discussion of such transition and access mechanisms
      can be found in [LISP-DEPLOYMENT].

Yakov.

> >>> #87: On reusing globally routed address block as EID-prefix (comment 11 r
ep
> > orted

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 10:13:38 -0400

Authors?  Others in the WG?
Joel

On 5/4/2011 10:05 AM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>>>>> Changes (by yakov@�):

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:33:27 -0700

Well the first paragraph in the Deployment Scenario section says:

8.  Deployment Scenarios

    This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be  
deployed
    and will discuss the pros and cons of each deployment scenario.  For
    a more detailed deployment recommendation, refer to [LISP-DEPLOY].

How about we add:

"... recommendation, and discussion of transition and access  
mechanisms, refer .."

Will that suffice?

Dino

On May 4, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

>>>>>>                                               A globally routed  
>>>>>> address
>>>>>>    transition and access mechanisms need to be deployed in  
>>>>>> order to remov
>> e a
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:57:15 -0700

Dino,

>     This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be deployed

No. 

Yakov.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:01:14 -0700

>> "... recommendation, and discussion of transition and access

Why not? It uses your words and references the deployment doc. Where  
do you want your paragraph to be put?

Isn't this getting bit too pedantic? I have to question the value/cost  
ratio here.

Dino

>>>>>>>> Changes (by yakov@ï¿½):

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:33:18 -0700

Dino,

> do you want your paragraph to be put?

Here is my proposal (based on Joel's proposal). In section 3 replace

with the following:

	Once this has been done, that block could be removed from
	the globally routed IP system, if other suitable transition
	and access mechanisms are in place.  Discussion of such
	transition and access mechanisms can be found in
	[LISP-DEPLOYMENT].

Yakov.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:26:22 -0700

> 	transition and access mechanisms can be found in

You want this in a definition section? I am fine with that if no one  
objects.

Dino

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 13:33:55 -0700

Dino,

> You want this in a definition section? 

Correct.

> I am fine with that if no one  objects.

Yakov.