- Original Message -
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 3:54 PM
-Original Message-
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011
- Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Robin Whittle
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:34 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
I wrote another explanation
From: Robin Whittle r...@firstpr.com.au
The LISP protocol does not introduce a new namespace for
Identifiers (for hosts, interfaces or whatever).
The long-term concept is that it needs to be a phased introduction:
initially, IPvN addresses are used on both sides of the mapping in
Noel and others,
Let's say we have an end system with as many ISP
connections as you like - each with its own locator
address. Let's say the end system also has multiple
loopback interfaces - say it has two, for example.
The end system connects to a first VPN and receives
the endpoint address
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
Let's say the end system also has multiple loopback interfaces - say it
has two, for example.
Why? What does that buy you?
Which one (A or B) is the end system's identity?
Suppose I assign two endpoint identifiers to a host.
Noel,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Noel Chiappa
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:08 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
From: Templin, Fred
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
one to one correspondence with the end system's multiple VPN
connections. The internal virtual interfaces keep the VPNs separate.
As logically separate sources for incoming/outbound packets, they are just
like multiple real
Hi Noel,
-Original Message-
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:43 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
No; not multiple identities. One identity; multiple interfaces and
multiple addresses.
But to the network, a thing with multiple identity names (no matter what the
exact namespace the names come from) looks like multiple things -
Hi Noel,
But I must confess I'm kind of confused as to why any of this
matters? I
mean, it's fun philosophical debate (well, for some people, I
guess :-), but
so what?
It just circles back again to the fact that what LISP
calls EID is something that names an interface; not
an end system.
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
It just circles back again to the fact that what LISP calls EID is
something that names an interface; not an end system.
And I keep pointing out that an LEID which is assigned to a virtual interface,
one which is created _solely_ as
Hi Noel,
-Original Message-
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:28 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
.. an LEID which is assigned to a virtual interface, one which is created
_solely_ as a place to hold the system's identity ..
...
.. a name which i) is purely identity, ii) has no location info of
any kind in it, iii)
Short version: If Noel's statements:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70356.html
reflect the position of most LISP protocol developers
and if I have understood him correctly then we are all
agreed that the LISP
Noel,
-Original Message-
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:40 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
15 30
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Robin Whittle
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:34 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
I wrote another
From: Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right. What the IETF protocol
known as LISP calls identifiers are actually IP addresses. And, IP
addresses name *interfaces*; they do not name *end systems*.
I've had this same debate
Hi Noel,
You wrote, quoting Fred Templin:
on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right. What the IETF protocol
known as LISP calls identifiers are actually IP addresses. And, IP
addresses name *interfaces*; they do not name *end systems*.
I've had this same debate about 6 times, and it
I wrote another explanation of why the LISP protocol does not involve a
separate namespace for Identifiers - and so why it is not a Loc-ID
Separation protocol.
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/lisp-not-loc-id/
This is a longer version of my arguments earlier in this thread because
be cynical, certainly arguable, is that I do not
see LISP rename happening.
OK - I was discussing arguments for why it should happen.
Now please stop sending around mail with the message Luigi thinks
that LISP is *the* loc/id separation protocol.
I figure you are aware that GSE, HIP, ILNP
From: Robin Whittle r...@firstpr.com.au
And no, none of the LISP advocates have ever claimed that LISP was the
only Locator Identifier Separation proposal or protocol.
I think the claim is also implicit in the title of this draft:
Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Robin Whittle wrote:
Hi Luigi (and other LISP people),
As a member of the LISP people (I wrote an interpreter and
a compiler for 8080), your statement above is irritating.
Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing
Hi Masataka,
I mean no offence. I try to keep my messages brief, and it would be
tortuous to write the LISP protocol at every point in this discussion.
In the context of the IETF, I think LISP means the protocol. I was
not discussing the LISP programming language at all.
- Robin
On
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Robin Whittle
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:07 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
Hi Masataka,
I mean no offence. I try to keep my messages
Hi John,
Along with 30 other carelessly un-trimmed lines of little interest to
the reader, you wrote:
I mean no offence. I try to keep my messages brief,
[JD]
This is a joke, right?
No.
- Robin
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Robin Whittle wrote:
I mean no offence. I try to keep my messages brief, and it would be
tortuous to write the LISP protocol at every point in this discussion.
In the context of the IETF, I think LISP means the protocol. I was
not discussing the LISP programming language at all.
You have
protocol is a Loc-ID
Separation protocol like those just mentioned?
Alternatively, does anyone argue why the definition of Loc-ID
Separation should be extended to include the LISP protocol's approach?
I believe that to extend its meaning to include this approach - and
therefore the approaches of Ivip
protocol without any qualification, especially
since you preceded it with the - as if LISP was the only Loc/ID
Separation protocol.
Do you and other LISP folks agree that GSE, HIP and ILNP are Loc-ID
Separation protocols? GSE was the earliest and ILNP is based on GSE.
The term was used in the title
29 matches
Mail list logo
