IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Mon, 13 October 2014 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203341A8A0C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fqOSIjPgHWcK for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43601A8A27 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a1so8607096wgh.9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cJ4zMnaHvqWdR197JXMbVP8q4YMjnKBr/TRe41pCIGA=; b=PwVu22WN+vtabwmXrkNYqC/SztYNT5X86elQ7rlKb+Uyws9Cc0FYIZ90s0qrAQ9nVZ rJZh59wXSN6IV9bkaW6XL3Qmr1P4Uxius/8rna1rlBLpWE0n1DXi/u4oajZCvingyY9N 0o4G4M3sQ5J0epeHWsJiEZaDZo5GZAvzyMuszxkxvFjQO4GViQUwB7EbOn0Br0GqUTJQ Eo9NCZ9DA6Qr7W04A9zzIw6eYCjZlkoq8giW/D9I5qD6zd3Z7TcCRpsiyaaHIQGT4Xhq W48mktOljFx+iOcfHmw+tGhEjnNpDx22v8PiIaAZc5fZMGrLPRvRNWuJEHyKvEKgZLfh LH0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSfaAAVuSbYf3R/vxymd0MvKik37szR8Aue8kllRCJzCyhCJhZK9Q8YR/8WQEfdsmZ6g6x
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.101.100 with SMTP id ff4mr415258wib.43.1413202914457; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.150.138 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:660:330f:a4:90cf:1eb6:3d02:27db]
In-Reply-To: <E318A549-303A-40A5-B072-54B763340503@gmail.com>
References: <fddce201eb144632a895d6c2f27bd637@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5439BE86.20302@joelhalpern.com> <1ee88b789ea2413ca5ddd6eb00a47374@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8C11EEBA-6B1C-4ED2-81F8-09C563C4CB2E@gmail.com> <8f701cb0ef564355ab865a027f2043a0@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <12DD0FED-3A7C-44B6-9AA8-3F04702E7A0D@gmail.com> <66048b82c60c48dfbd35efe9a5589126@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E318A549-303A-40A5-B072-54B763340503@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHm4cxYNg+znuh9uJJpe4_Xo_bE8aGJk-h3e1SywufcNHRr_mQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04182618b66a4b05054cf160"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1kywGznUK5TWCXqFWbsmqy-CCYg
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:22:00 -0000

Hi,

I think that Joel made a good point in a previous mail.

RFC6830 defines EID&RLOC as IPv4 and IPv6 addresses but does not prohibit
the definition of EID & RLOC in other types/form.

The intro document can simply state this fact and reference LCAF as ongoing
work to add extensibility to LISP.

On the other hand, may be the LCAF document should update the definition of
EID and RLOC accordingly.

Luigi



On 12 Oct 2014, at 04:23, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

The very first page of the Intro document says that RLOCs and EIDs can be
syntactically different from IP addresses. However, it leaves the reader to
guess what this means. So, I need to ask 20 seemingly obvious questions to
ferret out the actually meaning. Believe me, it is as painful to me as it
is to you!



But it's not as complex as you may think it is.

What does it mean to be "syntactically different" from an IP address? If
you can explain that, we won't have to play 20 questions.


It means the EIDs and RLOCs can be from any address family.

Syntactically an AppleTalk address is different than an IPv4 address.

Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email