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

> On Oct 11, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> 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?

The question is actually malformed. If you out any address in a header (and you don't say what type of header it is), then the address is relative to that packet format. 

So what are really trying to ask?

Dino

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