>-----Original Message----- >From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept > > > > From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> > > > If what LISP is calling an EID is indeed an IPvN address (it is) > >But it's not, not really,
It's not really an IPvN address? Does it say that somewhere? Fred [email protected] >because it's not necessarily routable in a global >scope (depending on exactly where you are in the deployment process, e.g. >after routes to that part of the namespace have been withdrawn in the core). > >Also, in later phases of the development of the network, depending on exactly >what happens (e.g. if we start to move the xTR functionality into first/last- >hop routers), some/most/all instances of legacy IPvN 'addresses' might have >zero routing functionality. > >We're trying to fit these things into too few, Procrustean, terminological >bins (and having impressively useless debates in doing so). Best to describe >in detail exactly what the properties of a given namespace, in a particular >design, are, and leave aside the angels-on-pins arguments about what category >they fall into. > > Noel >_______________________________________________ >rrg mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
