Dino Farinacci wrote:
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.
Fair enough. One then wonders why folks want to make it conform to some
other standardized terminology or use your terminology to make sense of
the rest of the world.
Maybe we're looking for a hammer so that we can deal with all of these
different screws? ;-)
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.
And you're well within your rights to design whatever it is that you
think is best, regardless of someone else's definitions.
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".
Like I just said, it's an identifier that was overloaded into being an
L2 locator.
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.
I think I just gave you X and Y.
So, to be practical, the RRG needs to decide if the definitions will be
relevant to reality.
I think that they are. The fact that many folks seem to overload
semantics doesn't make the semantics the unclean part, it is the
overloading that should be the issue. Further, even if we started with
some arbitrary overloaded semantics, the next proposal over would have
different overloaded semantics.
Again, we have to establish the basis vectors for the space, and it's
best if they are orthogonal. It does not matter if no one uses them in
their pure form or not.
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.
Glad we agree. Is there any dissent? If not, then are we done re: LISP?
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
