Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05

Joel,

If you put something that isn't syntactically identical to an IPv4/IPv6 address in the destination field of the outer header, how will it get to ETR?

                                                                                Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:35 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; lisp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax
> 
> The working group has other documents that define other formats for EIDs
> and RLOCs.  These are defined with AFIs.  In fact, AFIs are used in 6830 so as
> to allow compatible extension of the work.  At the time 6830 was published,
> those were the two defined forms.
> 
> Suggesting taht an extensible RFC prevents us from extending the work
> would be odd.  Since we do have work under way (the LCAF draft) which
> defines many other forms, it is quite appropriate to for the introduction to
> indicate that a broader range is possible.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/11/14, 7:17 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 says:
> >
> > "This document describes the LISP architecture, its main operational
> > mechanisms as its design rationale.  It is important to note that this
> > document does not specify or complement the LISP protocol.  The
> > interested reader should refer to the main LISP specifications
> > [RFC6830] and the complementary documents [RFC6831],[RFC6832],
> > [RFC6833],[RFC6834],[RFC6835], [RFC6836] for the protocol
> > specifications along with the LISP deployment guidelines [RFC7215]."
> >
> > I interpret this as meaning that draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 MUST
> > not contradict RFC 6830.
> >
> > However, Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 also says:
> >
> > "LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers) and
> > RLOCs (Routing LOCators), both are -typically, but not limited
> > to- syntactically identical to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
> >
> > However, RFC 6830 says:
> >
> > "An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6  [RFC2460] address of an Egress
> > Tunnel Router (ETR)."
> >
> > It also says:
> >
> > "An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value used in the
> > source and destination address fields of the first (most inner) LISP
> > header of a packet."
> >
> > Given these statements, how can the RLOC or EID by syntactically
> > different from an IPv4 or IPv6 address?
> >
> > Ron Bonica
> >
> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing
> list
> > lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >