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

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

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
To: HeinerHummel at aol.com
Cc: rw at firstpr.com.au, lisp at ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:15 -0400
In-reply-to: <c9e.4a4f53ae.36fbe0e4 at aol.com> (HeinerHummel at aol.com's message of "Wed\, 25 Mar 2009 15\:32\:52 EDT")
References: <c9e.4a4f53ae.36fbe0e4 at aol.com>

What do you mean that no EID is also an RLOC?  It's not clear to me
that in interworking cases this is always true.

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

References:
- Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespa...
  - From: HeinerHummel

Prev by Date: Re: [lisp] My comment at the mic during the WG meeting about evaluating/measuring complexity
Next by Date: Re: [lisp] Interworking - NAT
Previous by thread: Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespa...
Next by thread: Re: [lisp] Consensus? EID and RLOC use of the same address = separate namespace
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.