Instance-IDs are there (in the LCAF draft) to support LISP-VPNs. There is nothing in the main specifications because VPNs are out of scope for the LISP WG.
Dino On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > The problem I have with that view is that although it is accurate, it is also > bascially not explained. > For charter reasons, we left out any explanation of the private spaces, other > than putting in the hook for instance-ID. > > So, yes, as long as all of the users of a given mapping system and given > instance ID use 10/ space in a consistent fashion for allocating IDs, it will > work. But I don't see how a reader could understand that from the document. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/23/2011 3:30 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> By the way, it is interesting that Ari thought the EIDs would come out of >>> 10/8 space. That is obviously wrong, but maybe this misunderstanding gives >>> us a datapoint on the issue that I raised earlier about using the 10/8 >>> addresses in examples. >> >> Ah, but they could. That is the point. Since they are not injected in the >> core, an EID-prefix in 10/8 space can be made unique to both the mapping >> database and the data-plane core by coupling it with an instance-ID. And the >> instance-ID need only be unique *per mapping database system*. >> >> Dino >> >> >>> Jari >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
