On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Roger Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> And about Sander Steffann's problem: > "I understand what the technical idea is. There are already EIDs out > there (including my own network) that are not in any special prefix. > Therefore "address is in special prefix" != "address is an EID". > Unless you break LISP for already existing sites I don't see how > having a special prefix is going to help in (correctly) determining > whether an address is an EID." > > The _big_ difference between EID's out there today, and the one from > this new netblock are that any system should _know_ by matching the IP > that this is EID space, and by that know how to handle it. > > If traffic grow as everyone predict, and continue todo so, optimizing > the handling of LISP EID's is probably a very good idea. As long as the system handles sending map-requests for non EID_block prefixes, and interpreting the negative and positive replies, then the overall complexity of the system isn't really changed by the EID_block's existence. That doesn't mean that it is not a good idea to experiment with this allocation - or that some here-to-now unknown use case will see great benefit by the using the EID_block's assumptions. I just think we should keep our expectations for the benefits of this block modest. -Darrel _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
