Hi Noel, > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:43 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol > > > From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > one to one correspondence with the end system's multiple VPN > > connections. The internal virtual interfaces keep the > VPNs separate. > > As logically separate sources for incoming/outbound packets, > they are just > like multiple real interfaces. The name used for neither is really the > 'identity' of the host, the names applied to those things > just identify > sources/sinks of packets. > > > >> Suppose I assign two endpoint identifiers to a host. > Which is the > >> host's identity? > > > Neither - that's the point. The host's identify is not > bound to any one > > or multiple IP addresses. > > I said "endpoint identifiers" (under whatever definition of > that term one > wishes to use), not "addresses". OK, so then let's consider a related analogy. It is not uncommon for a person (e.g., John Doe) to have dual citizenship with countries A and B, i.e, John "interfaces" with both countries. John would receive a separate taxpayer identifier from each of A and B, which has relevance only within the respective country's "routing system". But, John's identity is neither A nor B; John's identity is John. > So, a single host can have multiple identities (whether one > does so via > multiple interfaces/interface addresses, or endpoint identifiers). So? No; not multiple identities. One identity; multiple interfaces and multiple addresses. Same as for the taxpayer ID analogy. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > Noel > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf