I believe the satisfactory answer is the one that ended up in the definitions section of RFC 6830.
-D On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Darrel, > > Yes, we have. Sadly, I don't recall every having seen a satisfactory answer > on the mailing list. Can you point me to one? > > > Ron > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM >> To: Ronald Bonica >> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); [email protected]; LISP mailing list list >> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2) >> >> Ron, >> >> It strikes me that we've had discussions on what an EID is many, many times >> before on this list. Perhaps looking at those archived conversations would be >> useful. >> >> -Darrel >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Albert, >>> >>> Your definition misses one small but important point. The degree to which >> an EID carries topological information depends largely upon the observer's >> location. >>> >>> For example, assume that a LISP site is served by two XTRs and both XTRs >> go down. Nodes within the site can still communicate with one another, even >> though no device that is operating has a LOCATOR. In this case, where does >> topological information come from? >>> >>> Also, when an EID is advertised into the global Internet by a PITR, does it >> continue to be an EID? If so, does it continue to be devoid of location >> semantics? >>> >>> >>> Ron >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Albert Cabellos [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 11:49 AM >>>> To: Ronald Bonica >>>> Cc: LISP mailing list list >>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2) >>>> >>>> Hi Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> The following text is lifted from Section 6.1. At best, it is difficult >>>>> to parse. >>>> At worst, it is incorrect. Is there a better way to distinguish >>>> between an IED and a LOC? >>>>> >>>> >>>> What about stating that RLOCs are topologically assigned to network >>>> attachment points while EIDs are independent of the topology and used >>>> to identify devices. >>>> >>>> Albert >>>> >>>>> Rn >>>>> >>>>> "The second key concept is that if one wants to be as >>>>> forward-looking as >>>> possible, conceptually one should think of the two kinds of names >>>> (EIDs and >>>> RLOCs) as naming different classes of entities. >>>>> >>>>> On the one hand, EIDs are used to name nodes - or rather, their end- >>>>> end >>>> communication entities. RLOC(s), on the other hand, name interfaces, i.e. >>>> places to which the system of routers sends packets. >>>>> >>>>> This distinction, the formal recognition of different kinds of >>>>> entities >>>> ("endpoints" and interfaces), and their association with the two >>>> different classes of names, is also important. Clearly recognizing >>>> interfaces and endpoints as distinctly separate classes of objects is >>>> another improvement to the existing Internet" architecture." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
