> On 28 Oct 2017, at 18:15, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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". ;-)
I think I’ve got it now. In my personal opinion I agree with you. EID and RLOCs are relative to the deployment model and such a strong requirement is not really useful/needed. Luigi > > > Renne > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
