Hello Dino Just a remark that in the mapping system discussions in the lisp list the strong sentiment is that EIDs must be allocated and administered as EID blocks to guarantee any efficiency and scalability. If the identities are coming from blocks that are allocated to given enterprises, then what happens when one of devices or a small remote site joins to an other enterprise in an different EID block? Renumbering of EIDs maybe? How portable are the EIDs at the end of the day depends on the mapping system structure and scalability. I would say that EIDs are independent from locators for sure, but not from their allocation scheme that ties them to topology.
- Hannu >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of ext Dino Farinacci >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 07:46 >To: Robin Whittle >Cc: RRG; Noel Chiappa >Subject: Re: [rrg] LISP does not implement Locator / Identity >Separation > >> An EID address is not an Identifier and an RLOC > >It is an identifier. It is used by the TCP and UDP socket >layer. Just because an EID is also a scoped locator inside of >a site, does not preclude it from being an identifier. > >> address is not a Locator. Both kinds of address >> are like any IP address - they play the roles of >> both Identifier and Locator. ITRs use a different >> algorithm for EID destination addresses. All >> other routers and all hosts make no distinction >> between EID and RLOC addresses. > >LISP does separate ID and locator because you can keep an EID >fixed with a system, maintaining session continuity, while >changing the locator associated with the EID. > >Dino > >_______________________________________________ >rrg mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
