Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace debate
John Zwiebel <jzwiebel@cisco.com> Wed, 25 March 2009 18:50 UTC
Return-Path: <jzwiebel@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 6C2823A6D84 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 W1oobnvGoiFB for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:49:59 -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 722883A67F3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.38,420,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="274046595"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 18:50:52 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PIoqiq029452; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:50:52 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PIoq2J013041; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:50:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.47]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:50:51 -0700
Received: from [10.0.1.4] ([10.21.123.168]) by xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:50:51 -0700
In-Reply-To: <49C9AD73.2070102@firstpr.com.au>
References: <49C9AD73.2070102@firstpr.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-46--145676521"
Message-Id: <59368833-6E24-4B9F-A224-1F8F23E7D278@cisco.com>
From: John Zwiebel <jzwiebel@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:50:44 -1000
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 18:50:51.0716 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EB6B840:01C9AD7A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2406; t=1238007052; x=1238871052; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jzwiebel@cisco.com; z=From:=20John=20Zwiebel=20<jzwiebel@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[lisp]=20Consensus?=20EID=20and=20RLOC= 20use=20of=20the=20same=20address=20=3D=20separate=20namespa ce=20debate |Sender:=20; bh=w7FpFyjnTv/R2btGlRdr1qcZwJ5lyhgs+XaU/5KahEo=; b=ZOyJjx6C7ng9n8ACjSJNotNu4TwgsTZCk4L74BiJWpv9pqyjDfI/4STL2E RkEcUGmjl6Rr9rPTMP9xjsms0LHwJ7qAXYuxqgEPJMs5PB3KdN7W8Fq8Htsi 2y08f+YC4uCpe5u2BKi5AP/B8zTnLozvQViPCNo2+8Yzsz5BRjLK0=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jzwiebel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace debate
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:50:00 -0000
On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Robin Whittle wrote: > > Since 2007-01 draft-farinacci-lisp-00 to 12 has > this as an absolute requirement: > > EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs. This does not say you can't use the same IP address for an EID and for an RLOC. It says EID and RLOC functions cannot be assigned to the same interface at the same time. Or, another way of looking at it, an interface cannot be in EID space and in RLOC space.
- [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same ad… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the sam… John Zwiebel