I have long maintained that what LISP is calling "EID" is not really an identifier but rather names a (virtual) interface the same as any IP address. Therefore, if the node has multiple independent (virtual) interfaces to which LISP EIDs must be assigned, it is not possible to say that only one of them is the "identity" of the endpoint.
RFC4838 illustrates my point, where it defines the term Endpoint Identifier (EID) as: "a name, expressed using the general syntax of URIs (see below) that identifies a DTN endpoint". RFC4838 recognizes that an endpoint may connect to multiple Internets (e.g., the terrestrial Internet as we know it today and an interplanetary Internet that may come into existence in the future) where each such Internet may maintain an independent routing and addressing system. Therefore, an IP address that is relevant in Internet A may have no relevance in Internets B, C, D, etc. and cannot therefore be considered the "identity" of the endpoint. With a namespace like URIs that have nothing to do with routing and addressing, it is natural to have a single URI identity for such a "multi-internetted" endpoint. So, an endpoint known as "xyzzy" in the terrestrial Internet would still be known as "xyzzy" in any other Internet it might happen to connect to. I'm not sure I have any specific recommendations relative to this, but just to observe that the LISP EID is really just an IP address that only necessarily has relevance within the terrestrial Internet. A true EID (e.g., in the spirit of RFC4838) would have to be taken from some "neutral" namespace that has nothing to do with routing and addressing. Fred [email protected] _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
