IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Mon, 13 October 2014 12:20 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 D02821A8A17 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:46 -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 UgSkPKanoS3r for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544BF1A8A14 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id u20so12795858oif.28 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:41 -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=u6eIFHcvlU1M934cnLd86tu4FMb42WlsxN5gIuLX/c4=; b=WSM9C5B4BIAF8MMBJEkDqtDuBa6Dm2T8MXIC80a8V7cnmUk09YGQ4RJCuSc1a/Efqd p2vxMonvrjuV322QyBhM8dw/dkKQ6c22hYpSA7FPbVCTYM+p8pwmVvQigkCyxC+FHoLt pZkeWyDMUSWM84AbxUKmI6VngshMYsLO2tRYI1sTnhTQE/4ozAexVatlhEPHEiwMeeqV Jcsyt3vVA8N3e9HTJLxYfQOTIQRuTVXJMETVIxpG67ukj09X80usv2Mwqmctk2LmSEMs R1EXjqIUDzEAFnFB30I9icmg1hVlgDKewegHG8Yc0fFyG8aIi5e4z5suTQWO8Td5s/u4 fjwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlp1PThbETY9f+zzbPX/RZtB2lsK6sDI6PWzdjYudHPwThz0yIPQsEsosfnCNlPcTXjci4W
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.126.233 with SMTP id nb9mr1901873obb.46.1413202841695; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.85.163 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:20:39 -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 14:20:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHm4cxbx_X-P_Ef7-cHFph8tMkRfYPFOOELmdbojcK8J3UZ6rA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1e55060368305054cedf0"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/YwvaAuR0kGsyfJ7yXYl16E16kc8
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 12:20:47 -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