On 2008-06-28 05:29, Dino Farinacci wrote:
However, "RLOC" and "EID" are not separate namespaces.
I view they are since they are allocated from different allocation
entities.
They're separate if they don't overlap. Even Lewis Carroll knew that.
So if the allocation mechanism guarantees that they don't overlap,
we're good.
That is true Brian, but to be specific, they will probably overlap for
IPv4 if and only if we allow PAs to be EID-prefixes. If we require EID-
prefixes to be PIs that could take longer for a site to upgrade to
LISP. So we could have a tradeoff dilemma. For IPv6, we can and would
like to plan on have different spaces. Draft draft-meyer-lisp-eid-
block-03.txt requested and received 2610:00d0::/32 for this purpose.
However, they aren't self-identifying unless we add a format prefix.
(Pouzin proposed that in 1974, but was not listened to.)
Right. There is a big advantage (at the detail level, sorry RRG, have
to talk about a bit of detail for a moment) if we have self
identifying EIDs. It's when an ITR decides if a destination is LISP
capable or not. Right now, we have spec'ed out that if the EID is in
the mapping database, then the destination is in a LISP site. It would
be nice to decouple this, avoid lookups and database mapping service
dependencies by just looking at the address.
Just like we do with different packet types:
if (ip_header->destination == unicast) {
ip_unicast_forward();
} else if (ip_header->destination == multicast) {
ip_multicast_forward()
} else {
log("class E or F address");
}
Dino
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
