IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Mon, 13 October 2014 12:21 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 4D65D1A8A3A for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:57 -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 F-NLGkCNXCSS for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 585D61A8A16 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b13so8487904wgh.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:48 -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=rNaTIEMRkA51Q2VXoYnGrw9EOitb3izFc1OBQpLguxA=; b=befMHiG8r6nTq0k7hNkRnpq01XRiN2bRa/h2YR103kYBu0H81zI4NKI3xKWssHH5t6 Rb6noCUjiTrgEb5I+t2BbV/BdqI1JinQLNwXQuQx9qoThS2xOcbHDJS4QdEMBk9tem5F XBuMfiKmpCS8OLRpLxlFNkZr0Fsg8+QQyTTMuI5fiGCd3bgVava4521gFW9z9ROUt9hY YhIVb2jYRLTkhiblCnG3mlYVTMSA1+szK0+tjelJBbaxf3SqJAmm2Oc9t38Tolk2oFLE x/BLiLitlyiPtz/9QDmC4fZJaOKKag/e75vEvc6kBQbrFurvF7lLKw13mE8jxBEi1X5E GnTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllQUC0OlcDQjSv5JY2kpiWsyQtYJlyv0AZfbaacHTKJok2P56ZS6iA6CDeF6tHHR48kiYd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.189.115 with SMTP id gh19mr1791790wjc.119.1413202908006; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.150.138 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:21:46 -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 14:21:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHm4cxZVZS62RGV5qg2HKZb_0SW9nrwmTANKSyavh9Df4MM6TQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb70a4053fe2a05054cf109"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/oHtf2jcl-smzqaAS4gDRCG5qsEk
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 12:21:57 -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