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...
I would have to agree with you.
nHow 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 theITR's, ETR's, and intervening routers handle it properly.
Then all ISPs have to renumber if we do that. And they would have to ask/force their customers to renumber their ETRs.
If locators are the addresses used in the BGP core today, less things have to change. And we don't have to require 240.0.0.0/4 to be used for EIDs. So host address changes can happen over time. The current PI allocations to site hosts can still be used.
Things won't be as clean as we would like but that is the cost of incremental/least-cost changes to get a Loc/ID split deployed. You have made this comment many times before.
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;
Very true. So 240.0.0.0/4 won't get fragmented like we have today with ISP and RIR allocations. Therefore I think its better to have 240.0.0.0/4 used for an EID namespace.
we don't have to rely on using up the 240/4 space to get more of them.
True. Dino -- 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