Re: [RRG] loc/id split and LISP

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>

    > On my todo list is the "crossover". So which one should I do first,
    > v4-EIDs-over-v6-locators or v6-EIDs-over-v4-locators?
    > Anyone else have an opinion?

I think other stuff (e.g. mapping distribution) is probably more important,
actually...

    > How about the contentious issue of 240.0.0.0/4, should it be used as
    > the TLA for the EID namespace for IPv4?

I think it actually makes more sense to use that space for LISP RLOC's. My
reasoning is that there are some issues with the use of that space in some
hosts, whereas if we use it for RLOC's, we only have to make sure that the
ITR's, ETR's, and intervening routers handle it properly.

Also, a namespace of a given size which is used for EIDs can be used more
efficiently than when it is used for locators. So we'll be able to squeeze
more names out of the rest of the IPv4 namespace once it it used for EIDs;
we don't have to rely on using up the 240/4 space to get more of them.

	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg