|> If PI is available, then all users will tend to cling to it, |> avoiding any |> other possible solution. Our entire job is to give them an |> alternative. | |No not true. Since PI addressing is so popular and saves so much in |opex, we should come up with a solution that allows or embraces it.
<tweet> Mutual misunderstanding, 10 yard penalty on both sides, replay of down. </tweet> When Noel was talking about PI addressing, I thought that we were talking about continuing the legacy process of handing out true addresses. Obviously, if we change to a locator/identifier solution, then we replace those with identifiers. Let's *not* confuse the issue by mixing PI and identifiers. They are completely different. |We have said this many times before in LISP fora, PI addresses |used at |sites are the EID-prefixes that map to topologically aggregatable |locators. That's confusing at best... While you may be allocating them from the same number pool, an EID prefix is *not* the same as a PI address. In particular, if someone starts advertising that EID prefix into normal BGP, is that going to be propagated? Hopefully not. The last I heard, you were talking about aggregating EID prefixes. Tony -- 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
