IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] [ipdir] LISP WG: Loc/ID separation - not separate namespaces

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Thu, 19 March 2009 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9D03A6B88 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfTfd9T8xsJR for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC223A6B6A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,386,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="269967720"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2009 01:17:15 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2J1HF68031554; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:15 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2J1HEjE018161; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:17:14 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:14 -0700
Received: from dhcp-171-70-249-217.cisco.com ([171.70.249.217]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:14 -0700
Message-Id: <EEB6118D-ABFF-40C6-B8F5-3940B41085C7@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <49C19BD2.7090800@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:14 -0700
References: <20090318024449.DD3CA6BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <49C194DE.6060502@firstpr.com.au> <7B0C1C66-3231-4C27-83C9-B06E851F3CBB@cisco.com> <49C19BD2.7090800@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2009 01:17:14.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FE0F480:01C9A830]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=745; t=1237425435; x=1238289435; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[lisp]=20[ipdir]=20LISP=20WG=3A=20Loc/I D=20separation=20-=20not=09separate=09namespaces |Sender:=20; bh=SEb6cwZ1+O+t1SBjdAyCjbofFfA7q4ZEUtLrSvBDDOI=; b=A0qbM2WI/UMSyffpPIP74hENMOsYQFxbtB/Sxodw1w2/d2Y0P2o8mSomr4 1QGwH/wGuzc46xJ7VYChCujyQ9gUIS73rsUzc6fq3FkRD6+hhfRxbBFe1SVj llzc2PmH4hEo2dSdhz4ZcS75XIauXWpSvtsRV08uODGp75pBSqkDQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [ipdir] LISP WG: Loc/ID separation - not separate namespaces
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:16:31 -0000

> You wrote:
>
>> Robin, you can have n namespaces with the same AFI value. RFC 2547  
>> VPNs
>> is an example of this. And there are plenty more examples as well.
>
> Maybe so, but this is nothing to do with LISP.

But that is how you'd implement an EID namespace that doesn't overlap  
with an RLOC namespace.

You could use, say 10.1.1.1 in both namespaces to mean two different  
things. That is, an address used as an endpoint TCP connection  
identifier and the other to number a CE/PE link from a PA-block on a  
CPE router.

Dino

>
>
> I stand by my critique:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00273.html
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg00288.html
>
>  - Robin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email