On 6/27/11 9:49 AM, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
I'm saying we should take it later when we allow PIDs to have some
structure, such as (do not take this literally): Asnumber.VRF.IP
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
