Short version: "RLOC" and "EID" are not, and never have been,
separate namespaces.
Let me give you an example where EIDs and RLOCs are separate namespaces.Today, the LISP test network uses 2610:00d0::/32 as a global unique EID-prefix. IPv6 sites will have devices assigned from this global prefix. This is a PI-prefix because it is not assigned to any service provider. This prefix is not injected into the underlying routing system, be it the /32 itself or any more specifics.
RLOCs will be assigned out of the 2002::/16 (among possibly other high- level prefixes). They can be PA-assigned prefixes. They will be assigned to the LISP ETR CE/PE link. They will appear in locator-sets of LISP map-cache entries.
So, architecturally, the 2 address spaces are separate and can implemented that way. It could be desirable to have an EID address out of the 2002::/16 space or a RLOC address out of the 2610:00d0::/32 space. But it may not be needed with such a large address space.
For IPv4, life is harder because of the vast install base, so the clear separation is harder to appreciate. But you could have the same address assigned from each namespace.
Just an FYI, in the prototype implementation, we use another VRF called "the LISP VRF" which stores solely EID-prefixes so we can operate the BGP-ALT in this namespace. And the default VRF has both namespaces so you can run underlying BGP at the site as well as having EID-subnets in your IGP.
Dino
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.