> On Oct 11, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Joel,
>
> If you put something that isn't syntactically identical to an IPv4/IPv6
> address in the destination field of the outer header, how will it get to ETR?
The question is actually malformed. If you out any address in a header (and you
don't say what type of header it is), then the address is relative to that
packet format.
So what are really trying to ask?
Dino
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:35 PM
>> To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax
>>
>> The working group has other documents that define other formats for EIDs
>> and RLOCs. These are defined with AFIs. In fact, AFIs are used in 6830 so
>> as
>> to allow compatible extension of the work. At the time 6830 was published,
>> those were the two defined forms.
>>
>> Suggesting taht an extensible RFC prevents us from extending the work
>> would be odd. Since we do have work under way (the LCAF draft) which
>> defines many other forms, it is quite appropriate to for the introduction to
>> indicate that a broader range is possible.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>>> On 10/11/14, 7:17 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
