Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

[Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>]

The design of LISP explicitly separates the Mapping system from the 
Itr/EtR.  Which means that the "IT Manager configuring xTRs) does not 
get to define how the mapping system works.
And if there are undefined variations in how it works for AFI=17, then 
we have not achieved interoperability.
And if there are potential interactions between different uses of 
AFI=17, then we again have a problem.

If you want to define that AFI-17 is always and only used along with 
instance-ID, then you solve PART of the problem.  But not all of it.  If 
different uses of the AFI clash, then we are creating problems even for 
a single adminstration using it under a single instance.

And from where I sit, the LISP working group is not chartered to provide 
a generic string based key-value store.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/2/2020 12:39 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> One can do many things on an ad-hoc basis.
>> But if we are telling people how to implement mapping systems, we have to tell them what they need to do.
>> And if people are using mapping systems, they have to know what they can expect from the mapping system.
> 
> Well the way I would deploy this is:
> 
> (1) Setup my sites to use AFI=17 the way I decide to use them. (I being the IT manager configuring xTRs).
> (2) The mapping system allocates me an instance-ID and auth-key that I register these EIDs to.
> (3) ETRs register AFI=17 with /n (n is the length of the string times 8). ITRs request AFI=17 EIDs with /n.
> 
> Dino
>