IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] WG Review: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)

Scott Brim <swb@employees.org> Thu, 19 March 2009 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@employees.org>
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 05F313A6B15; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, 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 LyyZNIr0X5M8; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2EC3A67ED; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,389,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="143775314"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2009 13:34:24 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2JDYOOm006108; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:34:24 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2JDYOXw017582; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:34:24 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:34:24 -0400
Received: from cisco.com ([10.86.245.243]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:34:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:34:19 -0400
From: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20090319133419.GW44014@cisco.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, iesg@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
References: <20090318003000.264213A6A6C@core3.amsl.com> <49C18DD6.1020800@firstpr.com.au> <tsleiwtzmgd.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tsleiwtzmgd.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2009 13:34:23.0506 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A614F20:01C9A897]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Review: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
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 13:33:40 -0000

Excerpts from Sam Hartman on Thu, Mar 19, 2009 09:11:46AM -0400:
> As I discussed in my other message, it does not seem like an absolute
> requirement that the same address can never be used both as an EID and
> RLOC.  

A field itself cannot be purely for routing/forwarding or for
identifying -- you cannot control what functions will use to do their
jobs, and they will take anything they can get.  You can assert that a
field "is" a locator or an identifier, but you should understand that
someone will always do something to break your theoretical purity.

> Also, could I get feedback from the rest of the list on the text?
> Do we want to adopt it?  If not, what do we want to fix about it?

I say we all know what we're talking about, so go with what we have,
do the work, and conduct the terminology war in our spare time.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email