Folks,
Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 says:
"This document describes the LISP architecture, its main operational mechanisms
as its design rationale. It is important to note that this document does not
specify or complement the LISP protocol. The interested reader should refer to
the main LISP specifications [RFC6830] and the complementary documents
[RFC6831],[RFC6832], [RFC6833],[RFC6834],[RFC6835], [RFC6836] for the protocol
specifications along with the LISP deployment guidelines [RFC7215]."
I interpret this as meaning that draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 MUST not
contradict RFC 6830.
However, Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 also says:
"LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers) and RLOCs
(Routing LOCators), both are -typically, but not limited to- syntactically
identical to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
However, RFC 6830 says:
"An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC2460] address of an Egress Tunnel
Router (ETR)."
It also says:
"An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value used in the source
and destination address fields of the first (most inner) LISP header of a
packet."
Given these statements, how can the RLOC or EID by syntactically different from
an IPv4 or IPv6 address?
Ron Bonica
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
