As individual ...
On 06/27/2011 11:28 AM, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
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
So ... are you saying that we should mandate a 1:1 but have some
flexibility? If so, this puts us in the grey area of having to explain
why a MUST may sometimes not quite be so authoritative.
As I said, in the end we appear to have some idea on how to deal with
an IP address appearing in multiple PIDs, however, the bigger question
remains on whether we should allow it at all.
I am trying to find out an equitable answer to that particular question
to determine if we change the MUST to SHOULD and explain what to do when
an IP address does have a 1:N relationship with PIDs.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
