I second having 1:1 relationship. We explored having an IP address in more than one PID during the protocol design and there were some difficult cases.
Having said that, a _private_ IPv4 can and would certainly appear in more than one PID if these represent different VRFs. It goes back to some of the gaps identified in penno-cdn Thanks, reinaldo On 6/27/11 9:23 AM, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> wrote: > As individual ... > > In reference to [1], where we discuss whether or not there > should be a 1-1 relationship between an IP address and > a PID, and if it is not, how should we handle it? > > On 06/24/2011 10:46 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: >> I think we should say something along the lines of what I suggest (it >> probably doesn't need to go in much, if any, more detail either) >> otherwise we risk interoperability issues where one client may >> interpret such a map as invalid while others do not. > > Ben: The bigger question to me is: is it indeed valid to have > a 1:N mapping between an IP address and a PID? If it is not, > then we leave this to the category of configuration errors and > not discuss how to handle it in the draft (the draft cannot > provide hedges against every MUST and MUST NOT). > > So, the larger question is: > > Do folks see a 1:1 relationship between a PID and an IP > address? Or do folks envision one IP address belonging > to more than on PID? > > My personal answer is to leave it at a 1:1 relationship, essentially > as it is defined in the draft right now. > > Thanks, > > [1] See the bottom half of > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg01058.html > > - vijay _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
