Am 27.10.2017 um 06:30 schrieb Dino Farinacci:
I'm not that happy with
"As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID,
it must refer to the same entity in both cases".
In a MESH-architecture the EID of a mobile-node can be the RLOC of a neighbour
mobile-node.
I too would like to understand your comment.
What the sentence is trying to achieve is that in some cases an EID and RLOC
may be the same value for a given end-node. Like when when an EID is behind a
NAT and the xTR is on the public side of the NAT, where the local private EID
will be translated to a global EID and to reach the xTR the RLOC is also the
same translated address.
Dino
Sorry, I missed the context and thought it is generally valid.
The basic idea for a MESH-network is a LISP-node which acts as a xTR for
itself and a RTR for the neighbour-nodes. In that case the string is a
LEID for the MESH-node and a RLOC for the neighbour MESH-nodes. As the
phrasing does not apply in this case, I'm happy with the removed "EIDs
MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs". ;-)
Renne
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
