> On 23 Jan 2018, at 16:11, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and >>> ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively. >> >> For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows: >> >> Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 >> [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is >> the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one >> or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address blocks >> assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the underlay >> network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay. >> Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to >> multiple ETR devices at a site. > > Adding “identifier of the underlay” does not improve or simplify the > definition. It makes it more confusing IMO. People will interpret LISP has > IDs in the underlay. Note in dozens of conversations I've had with people on > LISP who are new to the concepts refer to RLOCs as “routing IDs”. And then > when I ask them to clarify if they mean “EIDs” or “RLOCs”, they say “oh EIDs”. > > The definition above will not help with this confusion. > > I would like to keep the definition as is with your edits from your lastest > commentary review. > > Thanks, > Dino >
I don’t have a strong opinion on this point. You can keep the original text if you wish. L. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
