> Using IPv6 format is something we considered while writing the draft. We went 
> the LCAF route to have an explicit way to (1) distinguish ILA 
> Identifiers/Locators from other addresses in the Mapping System, (2) specify 
> the Identifier/Locator length and (3) include metadata bits. However, for 
> simple scenarios (only ILA domain, no overlapping with non-local addresses, 
> no multiple SIR prefixes, fixed Identifier length, no need for metadata bits, 
> etc) things could work with AFI=2 format. If the rough consensus from the 
> WG(s) is that a plain AFI=2 format is sufficient, we can certainly update the 
> draft. I would like to know the opinion of others on this. 

Well identifiers can be encoded as ::<64-bits> and locators can be encoded as a 
regular prefix (leading bits and mask-length).

I have been running with some ILA addresses in my mapping system for a while 
now. I wanted to show Tom that it could be done easily. What I did was register 
a 128-bit EID which was the SIR-prefix plus identifier which mapped to a 
128-bit RLOC that contained high-order bits as the routable locator and 
low-order bits as the identifier. I realize this is a bit redundant, but it 
could be done with no protocol or implementation changes.

Anyways,
Dino



_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to