On Nov 2, 2011, at 23:23 , Templin, Fred L wrote: > Thankfully, I missed most of the earlier threads related > to this. But, 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*. Same is true also of IRON. > In LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) EID stands for Endpoint-ID. Isn't the interface the endpoint of the Internet communication pipe? AFAIR LISP never claims that an LEID identifies a host or a general end-system. Luigi > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of Robin Whittle >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:34 AM >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol >> >> I wrote another explanation of why the LISP protocol does not >> involve a >> separate namespace for Identifiers - and so why it is not a Loc-ID >> Separation protocol. >> >> http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/lisp-not-loc-id/ >> >> This is a longer version of my arguments earlier in this >> thread because >> it assumes no knowledge of the LISP protocol or of the IRTF Routing >> Research Group work in recent years on scalable routing. >> >> Its good that the LISP protocol, Ivip and Iron are not Locator - >> Identifier Separation protocols: >> >> "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions is good for hosts and should be >> maintained 2010-06-22 >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html >> >> - Robin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf