[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace debate

From: John Zwiebel <jzwiebel at cisco.com>
To: Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au>
Cc: lisp at ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:50:44 -1000
In-reply-to: <49C9AD73.2070102 at firstpr.com.au>
References: <49C9AD73.2070102 at firstpr.com.au>

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.

References:
- [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace debate
  - From: Robin Whittle

Prev by Date: Re: [lisp] Charter for discussion at today's meeting
Next by Date: Re: [lisp] My comment at the mic during the WG meeting about evaluating/measuring complexity
Previous by thread: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace debate
Next by thread: [lisp] EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.