Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:20:15 -0400

On 8/21/08 2:43 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
> |But the EIDs, or whatever you want to call them, in a map-and-encap
> |scheme do not have to be the "identifiers" that (afaict) were the point
> |of this thread.  Map-and-encap is about routing and forwarding, not
> |identification.  We can have tokens (one or more) that fill all the
> |needs of identification without being closely associated with routing
> |and forwarding. 
> 
> This seems like semantic wrangling to me.  EIDs are still the input to the
> mapping function and to have the mapping aggregate, then there can be a need
> to renumber EIDs.  

I still thought the thread was about pure "identifiers".  Switching to
LISP "EIDs" so we can talk about something specific:

When a site network moves or merges it NEED NOT renumber -- any increase
in state is restricted to the first level of the mapping system and is
quickly damped out.  There isn't any increase in state at the sites
communicating with that site network either unless the network
fragments.  The only thing that changes is the RLOCs.

When a single device moves my personal opinion is that it should
renumber (although there are ways to make that unnecessary) ...
especially because LISP EIDs are not used as pure node identifiers, and
I would expect some other mechanism such as HIP to provide node
authentication e.g. for session continuity.

Make sense?

Scott

--
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