> From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right. What the IETF protocol
> known as LISP calls "identifiers" are actually IP addresses. And, IP
> addresses name *interfaces*; they do not name *end systems*.
I've had this same debate about 6 times, and it was boring after the first 2
or 3, but since you posted this to the main IETF list, I feel I ought to
briefly recap some of the points I have made before for the benefit of those
who haven't seen the previous N iterations.
LISP is intended for a variety of usage cases, and in _some_ the 'LEID' does
have _some_ location information (useful within a limited scope), but... in
others it has none at all. LISP is intended to work with unmodified hosts,
which means we're kind of limited in how radical a change we can make to the
semantics of various namespaces - we are not working with a clean sheet of
paper.
In at least one usage case, i) the 'LEID' is the address on an internal
'virtual' interface, and ii) _there is no route to that interface address
anywhere in the IGP/AS_. You may say 'well, it's still naming an interface',
to which I reply 'hey, it walks like an EID, quacks like an EID; it has
exactly the _semantics_ of an EID (i.e. pure identity, no location info of any
kind, cannot be used for forwarding anywhere) - what difference does it make
whether you call it a duck or an "interface address"'?
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf