Joel, Yes, thank you - that is a better phrasing.
Alia On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think your paraphrase quite captures it. > In the abstract theory, the bit string represented by A could be an EID for > one device and an RLOC for a different device. > As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RLOC and > an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/23/2011 2:43 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >> So - although theoretically the value A can be an EID and an RLOC, the >> LISP >> protocol as specified does not permit this. >> >> I understand that was a choice started based upon assumptions around the >> allocation authority for number spaces. >> >> I strongly think that this clarification must be made in the [LISP] >> draft. Without >> that assumption, various parts of what is specified simply do not work. >> >> Alia >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Dino Farinacci<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> From the discussion on draft comments, I have the following basic >>>> question: >>>> >>>> Is a value A is assigned to either the EID space or the RLOC space? >>>> Could site X have an EID with value A while site Y (or >>>> even a non-LISP) has an RLOC (or globally routable address) with the >>>> same value A? >>> >>> Architecturally, yes, the value A can be an EID and an RLOC. In practice, >>> no, for IPv4 and maybe for IPv6. Let me explain. >>> >>> Since there are two namespaces for each of IPv4 and IPv6, it means, for >>> the >>> case of IPv4, there are two 2^^32 number assignment spaces. But we don't >>> have two allocation authorities, one for each, so the addresses will be >>> assigned from one 2^^32 pool and be used as either an EID or an RLOC >>> depending if the site has converted to being a LISP site. >>> >>> For IPv6, if we had a PI allocation authority, then it would hand out EID >>> prefixes to end sites. If we also had a PA allocation authority, then it >>> would hand out RLOC addresses to infrastructure providers. In this case, >>> if >>> the two authorities acted independently, then the same value could be >>> assigned for each namespace. >>> >>> This is not a problem to duplicate the address in each namespace. But I >>> do >>> believe for operational sanity it would be nice to look at logs, debugs, >>> or >>> whatever, see an address and decipher it is an EID versus an RLOC. This >>> is >>> one of the reasons the working group wants to request an IANA assigned >>> /12 >>> or /16 (not decided yet I think). >>> >>>> For instance, consider deploying an IPv4 LISP site now. Could one >>>> take an IPv4 prefix already used >>>> globally by a different company/site - and use it for my new LISP site >>>> as an EID prefix? >>> >>> No because there is one allocation authority and it is enforcing a unique >>> address allocation policy. >>> >>>> Do all the drafts always check for the IP address in the mapping >>>> database to see if it is an EID? I recall seeing some >>>> cases of checking the global routing table - but that could be bad >>>> memory at this point. >>> >>> If you look in the ALT routing table and find a prefix, it is an EID. >>> That >>> is an example of looking in *a routing table*. But that is part of the >>> mapping database system. So it is one in the same. >>> >>>> Could a host in a LISP site send to an IP address as an EID and the >>>> same IP address as a globally addressable (or routable)? >>> >>> A host sends to destinations. So it doesn't know one from the other (a >>> feature). So yes, both a non-LISP site host and a LISP site host can talk >>> to >>> both a non-LISP site and LISP site destination. >>> >>>> I am confused because "architecturally" I believe the EID space and >>>> the RLOC space are separate namespaces - but in practice >>>> in the drafts, it seems that a given value must belong to a single >>>> entity, whether it is used as an EID, globally addressable, or both. >>> >>> That is what you get when you build an architecture after the network is >>> built. ;-) >>> >>> Dino >>> >>>> Is this clearly specified anywhere? What am I missing? >>>> >>>> Alia >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
