[RAM] Re: the separation of ID/RLOC

[Michael <mahuaiyuan at huawei.com>]

Hi, Dino,

This is a overlay model, ISPs can be treated as a tranport network. If we do not consider the mobility too much in this phrase, this proposal works fine. If the mobility must be supported in the future, the mapping becomes complicated, of course, the candidate solutions will be based on the some basic assumption: the dimension of moving network, that is, whether the majority part of  the Internet can move arbitarily or just a small part can be allowed to move. Anyway, if the mobility will be well supported, the reliability and timeliness of the mapping mechanisms would be the critical issue. 

Michael



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dino Farinacci" <dino at cisco.com>
To: "Michael" <mahuaiyuan at huawei.com>
Cc: <ram at iab.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: the separation of ID/RLOC


>> As I spot, in LISP1, LISP1.5, there is no a complete separation  
>> bwtween ID/RLOC , because, within a site, a EID still play both  
>> roles at the same time, in LISP2 & LISP3, EIDs are said to be  
>> unroutable, I do not really understand, here I guess that you mean  
>> EIDs are not routable among ISPs, like Tier-1 etc, they are still  
>> routable inside a site. If I am wrong, how devices inside a site  
>> can be routed?
> 
> The ID/RLOC split is for global communication. Which means outside of  
> the site. So yes, an EID is routeable within a site and there is no  
> split because the packet hasn't hit an ITR yet. When the packet  
> reaches an ITR, the packet is typically destined for a destination  
> outside of the site. At that point the ITR prepends a header where  
> the addresses in the outer header are RLOCs.
> 
> Dino
>

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram