> From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>
> We are not saying this entire block is being used for global deployment
> of LISP. And no one is saying LISP can't succeed without this block.
> ...
> It does not mean that the current forwarding paradigm does not work
> or cannot work.
> We must not and will not require reassignment of addresses to use
> LISP. ... existing allocations and futures allocations can be EIDs.
These are all _really_ excellent points, and the document should make them
clearly, and at the top. (Sorry if it already does this - haven't read any
recent versions, too busy.) And also the point about how the special prefix
is not going to be the way we determine whether an address is an EID.
> An address becomes an EID when it no longer is advertised by an edge BGP
> router (from a tail or stub portion of the Internet topology).
Minor quibble, because I prefer the 'is there a mapping available' as the
'gold standard' test for EID-ness.
For backward compatability with 'legacy' hosts, many EIDs _are_ advertized
into the global routing (either by the ETR, or a PITR, etc), so 'in/not-in
the global routing table' doesn't tell us much about EID-ness.
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
