Subject: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:26 -0500 (EST)

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

    > If what LISP is calling an EID is indeed an IPvN address (it is)

But it's not, not really, because it's not necessarily routable in a global
scope (depending on exactly where you are in the deployment process, e.g.
after routes to that part of the namespace have been withdrawn in the core).

Also, in later phases of the development of the network, depending on exactly
what happens (e.g. if we start to move the xTR functionality into first/last-
hop routers), some/most/all instances of legacy IPvN 'addresses' might have
zero routing functionality.

We're trying to fit these things into too few, Procrustean, terminological
bins (and having impressively useless debates in doing so). Best to describe
in detail exactly what the properties of a given namespace, in a particular
design, are, and leave aside the angels-on-pins arguments about what category
they fall into.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:29:07 -0800

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept
>
>
>But it's not, not really,

It's not really an IPvN address? Does it say that somewhere?

Fred
[email-masked]

>because it's not necessarily routable in a global