Hi Joel,
I got that impression from the text I cited below and from the examples
in the draft using the 10/8 space. If the "common case" (at least
eventually) is using the globally routed addresses blocks, perhaps that
could be explicitly stated, e.g., somewhere in the beginning of section 4?
And apparently at least Map-Requests can be sent without ALT using the
"underlying routing system topology" (section 4.1.) and EID as
destination address (sec 6.1.3). Doesn't this break if the EID blocks
are removed from the global routing table?
Cheers,
Ari
On 10/20/11 6:02 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Ari, on what basis did you come to the conclusion below.
The goal (putting aside transition) is not that EIDs will come from 1918
space, but that we will be able to remove the EID blocks (and their
dis-aggregations) from the global routing table.
The use of the EID as the destination is within the ALT (or other
mapping systems). EIDs must be unique within a mapping system.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/20/2011 4:01 AM, Ari Keranen wrote:
The basic overview section says that "EIDs are not expected to be usable
for global end-to-end communication". From this I'd assume that with
IPv4 RFC1918 addresses are commonly used as EIDs. However, sometimes
packets seem to be sent directly to EIDs outside of LAN, e.g., section
6.1.3 says "For the initial case, the destination IP address used for
the Map-Request is the destination-EID from the packet which had a
mapping cache lookup failure". How does this work with RFC1918 addresses?
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
