Sorry, I mistakenly posted to the list. Will get back to private.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:28 AM, DaeYoung KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If they fate-share RLOC changes, they should be assigned in power-of-2 >> blocks. >> > > Now I think I begin to understand what you mean here... > > - With power-of-2 EID assignment, the whole EIDs of a site would be > reduced to a single entry (EID-prefix) in the mapping database. > - So, one EID to one (or multiple for multi-homing?) RLOC, one-to-one > correspondence, and so fate-sharing...? > > This would mean... if any specific node would move to a different site, it > would be given a new EID from a new power-of-2 blocks. > > If all EID prefixes of different sites would be kept different, this means > EIDs are each globally unique. > > Have you ever thought of the possibility that EIDs of different sites > would consume the same number space? This would mean the same EID-prefix > could be share by different site. This would correspond to local addressing > (of nodes). Have you thought of extending LISP in this direction? > > > > -- > DY > -- DY
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
