Dino Farinacci wrote:
These definitions are fine with me.
But people are going to ask where does a MAC address and a LISP EID
fit into these definitions.
AFAIK, our job was not to define LISP. That's your job. ;-)
And we have done that.
But let me be clear about definition of the LISP EID. We did not
define it to be a pure definition or tried to make it adhere to
someone else's definition.
We first and foremost wanted to achieve the goal of no host changes
and no subnet or readdressing changes in a newly converted LISP site.
That was the dominant reason for it's definition.
A MAC address and a LISP EID are both identifiers which also have
topological significance within a scope.
As I think we discussed, possibly after you left, a MAC address was
originally conceived of as a pure identifier. It's L2 locator
semantics were overloaded onto it when people conceived of
bridging. None of these make the MAC address into an L3 locator.
I realize that but after people mull over the RRG definitions, they
will undoubly ask "so how does a MAC address fit into those
definitions".
So the RRG has the choice to say, it does in form X or a combination
of form X and Y which are defined by the research group. Or, the RRG
says we don't have a definition of it.
So, to be practical, the RRG needs to decide if the definitions will
be relevant to reality.
And they are more like identifiers, as defined below because when
they move within that scope they *can* change (MAC addresses don't
but LISP EIDs should). But they do have local scope topological
significance as defined by locator below.
As far as I can tell, a LISP EID is simply a higher layer address in
a two level address hierarchy. The RLOC the lower layer address.
Yep.
Dino
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
