The design of LISP explicitly separates the Mapping system from the
Itr/EtR. Which means that the "IT Manager configuring xTRs) does not
get to define how the mapping system works.
And if there are undefined variations in how it works for AFI=17, then
we have not achieved interoperability.
And if there are potential interactions between different uses of
AFI=17, then we again have a problem.
If you want to define that AFI-17 is always and only used along with
instance-ID, then you solve PART of the problem. But not all of it. If
different uses of the AFI clash, then we are creating problems even for
a single adminstration using it under a single instance.
And from where I sit, the LISP working group is not chartered to provide
a generic string based key-value store.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/2/2020 12:39 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
One can do many things on an ad-hoc basis.
But if we are telling people how to implement mapping systems, we have to tell
them what they need to do.
And if people are using mapping systems, they have to know what they can expect
from the mapping system.
Well the way I would deploy this is:
(1) Setup my sites to use AFI=17 the way I decide to use them. (I being the IT
manager configuring xTRs).
(2) The mapping system allocates me an instance-ID and auth-key that I register
these EIDs to.
(3) ETRs register AFI=17 with /n (n is the length of the string times 8). ITRs
request AFI=17 EIDs with /n.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
