Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:07:00 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>

    > No; not multiple identities. One identity; multiple interfaces and
    > multiple addresses. 

But to the network, a thing with multiple identity names (no matter what the
exact namespace the names come from) looks like multiple things - code can't
'step outside the network' and, from an external view, see that there's only
one thing. There's no way to tell the two names refer to the same thing -
unless there is some facility for _detecting_ when two names refer to the
same underlying thing. At which point, that equivalence class becomes the
real 'name of the thing'.

But I must confess I'm kind of confused as to why any of this matters? I
mean, it's fun philosophical debate (well, for some people, I guess :-), but
so what?

	Noel

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 08:14:22 -0700

Hi Noel,

> mean, it's fun philosophical debate (well, for some people, I 

It just circles back again to the fact that what LISP
calls "EID" is something that names an interface; not
an end system. See the subject line for the implications.

I suggested a long time ago that the LISP team rename
"EID" as "Endpoint Interface iDentifier", but they
balked at the suggestion. I do however believe that
that expansion is more closely aligned with the truth.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]
 
> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>