Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:15:51 -0700

|> If PI is available, then all users will tend to cling to it,  
|> avoiding any
|> other possible solution.  Our entire job is to give them an  
|> alternative.
|
|No not true. Since PI addressing is so popular and saves so much in  
|opex, we should come up with a solution that allows or embraces it.

<tweet>
Mutual misunderstanding, 10 yard penalty on both sides, replay of down.
</tweet>

When Noel was talking about PI addressing, I thought that we were talking
about continuing the legacy process of handing out true addresses.
Obviously, if we change to a locator/identifier solution, then we replace
those with identifiers.  Let's *not* confuse the issue by mixing PI and
identifiers.  They are completely different.

|We have said this many times before in LISP fora, PI addresses 
|used at  
|sites are the EID-prefixes that map to topologically aggregatable  
|locators.

That's confusing at best...  While you may be allocating them from the same
number pool, an EID prefix is *not* the same as a PI address.  In
particular, if someone starts advertising that EID prefix into normal BGP,
is that going to be propagated?  Hopefully not.  The last I heard, you were
talking about aggregating EID prefixes.

Tony

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg