It seems to me that there are three related technical problems or
general concerns.
1) We need to be clear about which LCAFs can be used as EIDs, which as
RLOC, and which as both.
2) We need to be clear about how the mapping system is to support any
given LCAF as an EID. For Example, if one prohibits the IID mask length
then an IID + Address LCAF can be be supported by the mapping system as
a simple prefix. But, if we have to match on both IID prefixes and
Address prefixes then this requires more support from the mapping system.
2a) Specifically, for any LCAF on which there can be multiple partial
matches we have to specify what "longest match" means. Does longer IID
trump longer Address?
3) If we have LCAFs for EIDs which need support from the mapping system
then the EID needs to know what LCAFs the mapping system supports. It
seems likely that special-purpose cases will use separate mapping
systems tied to separate authorities. But how will the ETR that is
registering or the ITR that is asking know which mapping system supports
which set? Configuration seems a VERY bad answer.
Note that this is separate from the question of whether an ETR using a
complex LCAF RLOC can reasonably expect the ITR to understand it.
Comments, opinions, or rotten tomatoes?
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
