Re: [lisp] LISP does not involve separate namespaces
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 30 July 2009 13:49 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 E55B43A6994 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 2w+na9gL38Wz for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD883A6C57 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D3A2A6BE5C7; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20090730134907.D3A2A6BE5C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:49:07 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 13:49:08 -0000
> From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> > Suppose a nameserver or some other piece of critical infrastructure is > in RLOC space, and an endpoint wants to talk to it. If endpoints want to be able to talk to it, probably the best way is to have an EID assigned to it. > How does ... tell whether the destination address is an RLOC or an EID > if the address spaces overlap? Without context, you can't. People seem to be forgetting the words 'incremental' and 'practical' here. Yes, if we were doing a 'clean sheet' design, we could make a clear separation between the two. HELLO! We don't have that luxury. Some ugliness is therefore inevitable. Noel
- 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