IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Thu, 26 March 2009 02:09 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 5AD573A6D9F for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, 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 ycSGixjVsvKq for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E42D3A6A10 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,422,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="161754887"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 02:10:01 +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 n2Q2A1wY012272; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:10:01 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2Q2A1nw020276; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:10:01 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:10:01 -0700
Received: from dhcp-51cf.meeting.ietf.org ([10.21.124.160]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:10:00 -0700
Message-Id: <95586A33-942B-4285-BDFF-525F56F9E602@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <49CAE11C.80802@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 v930.4)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:09:59 -0700
References: <c9e.4a4f53ae.36fbe0e4@aol.com> <tsl63hx9o1s.fsf@mit.edu> <49CAE11C.80802@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.4)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 02:10:00.0711 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7F04970:01C9ADB7]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=648; t=1238033401; x=1238897401; 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]=20Consensus?=20EID=20and=20RLOC= 20use=20of=20the=20same=20address=20=3D=20separate=20namespa ce |Sender:=20; bh=tbyj5yAdKjDPiLg8/L+WlHseqwBhLyjpx8CpP3iYlw0=; b=AiqpI2GTQBm5/ZIjdaawCIlrPTghRD/EGnl5nn0POV+T7dKRGq42rWmn8/ Hu2Y6zaKX+T4nI+zEKH+4YEos/2CpUhPJNeRHwTvdiCN3uw9pJpvRShAv4fI 2IOrq4Wr+Ei5rXkeNKW1vIgTuxc0LXFQOY0/hOiYeHkXoM6Ro4D/o=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dino@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
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, 26 Mar 2009 02:09:09 -0000

>            Dino, Vince, David and Darrel:  You wrote draft-
>               farinacci-lisp.  Can you comment on this debate?

No, I won't. I would rather work on more important problems.

I will keep this simple:

An EID is a 32-bit address used for socket-id identification in hosts.  
It is also an interface ID since the host can be multi-homed and  
attached to the subnets the IGP is routing within the site. An EID is  
not injected into BGP routing towards the core.

An RLOC is the PA IP address assigned to the CE/PE interface of the  
LISP router that resides at the site.

With all due respect, can we move on?

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email