Subject: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:40:46 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document is clearly requesting the assignment of LISP EID space for
an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have
missed the discussion in the archive.]

Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a permanent
assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How should
this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
successful?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

An early allocation was made in October/2015.  The values should be
included in the document.

The dates mentioned assumed a start date of December/2015, but the
document isn't getting approved until now — is there a need to change the
dates?  Just wondering — part of it is that I'm not sure if RIPE has
already started allocating addresses or not.

Please expand ROA and put in a reference.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:33:02 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

se comments inline.

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:40, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

As I replied for the management document, certainly we can go for experimental.

> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is

This is normal IETF process. LISP WG has to discuss whether or not a permanent allocation is needed.

Right. The allocation has been granted after the -12 has been published.
We will include the values in the -13 version.

> already started allocating addresses or not.

We can easily shift all the timing to start at 2016.

> Please expand ROA and put in a reference.

Thanks. Will do.

ciao

L.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:12:24 +0000

On 2/16/16, 5:33 AM, "Luigi Iannone" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Luigi:

Hi!

...
>permanent allocation is needed.

I think it is fine if the lisp WG has the discussion and we go from there.

I still think there should be some indication of what is success.  Is it
related to the number of allocations made by RIPE? Is it related to the
advertisement of those allocations?  The use of those allocation in
production?  All/none of the above?

IOW, if the WG is going to have a discussion about whether to continue or
not, there should be some criteria to consider.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:04:16 -0500

Hi Alvaro,

> not, there should be some criteria to consider.

The original request was for a permanent allocation from IANA. During
the first IETF Last Call, there was significant push back on that. The
result was to request a temporary allocation that expires in a set time
period. After that, it would be up to the IESG to determine if the
allocation should be made permanent or retired.

I viewed that compromise as saying that the IESG in 2018 would determine
the criteria for making the allocation permanent or not.  This may be
worth discussing in detail on Thursday.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:09:04 +0000

On 2/16/16, 10:04 AM, "iesg on behalf of Brian Haberman"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Brian:

Hi!

>worth discussing in detail on Thursday.

Sure.  

I don't feel comfortable not having a pre-determined criteria to start
with.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:37:42 -0500

To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years 
there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent 
allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend 
the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every 
possible situation.)

Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other 
than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent 
allocation, I don't see much that can be said.

If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that 
after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the 
usual criteria for such requests.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:44:17 +0000

On 2/16/16, 4:37 PM, "iesg on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Hi!

>usual criteria for such requests.

The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
"sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?

At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:19:46 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 

I am a bit lost in what should the process be.

If it is the IESG that has to take a decision in 3 years, is it up to the authors/WG to write how the IESG has to decide? 
I am not sure I follow this reasoning.
Shouldn’t the IESG decide what are the criteria? 

Any guidance is welcome
Thanks

Luigi

---

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:46:03 +0100

> experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

I understand what you ask for, but I have no idea on how to formulate such
criteria.

What I am personally quite sure about is that the amount of
assignment made from this allocation alone will not be a justification for
granting this a permanent allocation. We could end up with very few
assigment but the technical gain is significant.

So, this experiment end in 3years time automatically and before that
LISP-WG will either 1.) let it expire, 2.) ask for an extension  or
3.) ask for a permanent allocation.

For option 2 or 3 to happen someone will have to present a draft that
can justify it technical, or option 1 will happen. Either way we would
have learned something from it I hope.

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:31:51 +0000

On 2/17/16, 4:46 AM, "Roger Jørgensen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[Responding to Roger's e-mail..but the answer is not specifically directed
at him.]

>assigment but the technical gain is significant.

Agreed.

>have learned something from it I hope.

I hope we learn too.

Putting the allocation issue aside for a second...

The document itself already lists "the most relevant scenarios" in Section
3. (Rationale and Intent).  For the scenarios listed, what would represent
a successful experiment?  What type of information would we want to
collect to determine if the scenario was in fact relevant (or not)?

For example, taking one of the scenarios (I chose the one with the
shortest description):

   Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic:  In certain circumstances it might
         be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
         natively forward all packets that have not a destination
         address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed
         and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any
         manner.

In this case I would assume people would want to look at the impact of the
lookup -- is non-LISP traffic penalized?  How much?  Does having a
separate router processing help?  Is it significant?

Answering questions like that would identify whether, for that scenario,
having the block of addresses made a difference or not.  If, for example,
the penalty was huge and using the block reduced it significantly, then it
helps the case for an extended (maybe even permanent allocation).  OTOH,
if the performance is about the same, then maybe that doesn't justify
anything.  The other potential outcome is that experience was gathered,
but that the results are still inconclusive and more experience is needed,
maybe justifying an extension.

I'm just making all that up -- I'm sure the authors/WG know better than me
why each of those scenarios is relevant.

The important thing about the above is that then the future IESG is not
making a decision in a vacuum about allocation.  And the future lisp WG
can also support their request for extension/permanent allocation with
data from the experiment.

In the end what I would like to see the draft talk about is not the
decision for allocation itself, but about what is going to be done with
it, and (given "the most relevant scenarios") how that experience can
support someone's case in the future.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:33:00 +0100

Hi,

I have a clarification question:

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 15:31, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:

Who would provide such results to the IESG? The community at large? The LISP WG?

And in which form? An I-D? Presentation? 

thanks

Luigi

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:09:22 +0100

Hi All,

This is a reply to Alvaro’s mail but is actually directed to all IESG members that had comments on the document.

Thank for all of your comments. We (hopefully) addressed all of them in the revised I-D that has been just submitted.

I attach a RFCDiff to this mail so that you can easily check fixes.

Please let me know if we missed anything.

BTW, the document has also been changed from “informational” to “experimental”, as request during IESG review.

Have a nice weekend

ciao

Luigi