Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespaces
Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2009 13:42 UTC
Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.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 AB1B428C1BE for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 LdiHyxwQH2cv for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f226.google.com (mail-fx0-f226.google.com [209.85.220.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BA728C1EE for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm26 with SMTP id 26so679750fxm.42 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1SLlTPtcoSJ2guDzi+lH7+sqxMEdfoiR0qayI8ipxB0=; b=hvlP5a5kgVBUXASfD3eV2njBw59BA+JF0yhSRBlm2i9JGskpjFH357s7EvOiCV7gdO EQtlVjPvVbOUU6iw2xrfC/nLQwUv9h0jisAaZxigfgbrYX4bImqj82+vAAN3fhZkMzXc hdZbslXhQfIcgpIaUICdPkK9fxFuLZLk3xTrQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wbWWHMFg1LpjepT4LD1eEPTYdgNF7YhO9uvpBN4xPhdE5yDmx7Obi2oQd4X/xCcqaN HjOiKu1HqLX50yGT6MrOPAPir5Z+Xr6RsAFpXv+z9gywck5rgsLfO0qFgZU/OQLuFrbr HcnKG3E1Qm0LKhLYhvBDbav6DVvrKUUsZVmVs=
Received: by 10.103.243.9 with SMTP id v9mr710342mur.72.1248961358088; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-55fa.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-55fa.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s10sm13879611muh.47.2009.07.30.06.42.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A71A34A.3080503@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:42:34 +0200
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
References: <20090730031536.1CB5E6BE58C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4A719822.1090000@firstpr.com.au> <2DC01886-6E0D-4135-B65A-0EEF9AF1A1CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <2DC01886-6E0D-4135-B65A-0EEF9AF1A1CC@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespaces
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, 30 Jul 2009 13:42:40 -0000
Dino Farinacci allegedly wrote on 07/30/2009 15:31 GMT+02:00: > 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. Suppose a nameserver or some other piece of critical infrastructure is in RLOC space, and an endpoint wants to talk to it. What happens? How does the endpoint's site network, or xTR, tell whether the destination address is an RLOC or an EID if the address spaces overlap? Scott
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Scott Brim
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespa… Robin Whittle