Re: [RRG] loc/id split and LISP

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> > From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > Then all ISPs have to renumber if we do that. And they would have to
> > ask/force their customers to renumber their ETRs.
>
> Actually, I wasn't suggesting that all RLOC's have to come from  
> that space
> (which certainly has the disadvantages that you list), merely that  
> if it is
> released, that it be used for RLOC's.

Okay, makes more sense.

> I do not think we can require either namespace (EID's or RLOC's) to be
> entirely allocated from 240/4; that would have the same problem for  
> either
> use, i.e. it would require a lot of renumbering.

Definitely agree.

> > I think its better to have 240.0.0.0/4 used for an EID namespace.
>
> The problem with that is that if a host is given a 240/4 address as  
> an EID,
> for it to successfully operate, not only does *it* have to operate  
> correctly
> with 240/4 addresses, but so do *all the other hosts* with which it  
> might
> want to inter-operate. So, legacy hosts are going to make use of  
> 240/0 for
> EID's (or for host addresses in general) problematic.

This is true, the "it's hard to upgrade hosts" issue.

> Far better to use it in a more limited context, i.e. the LISP  
> backbone.
>
> And, like I said, once the rest of the namespace space becomes  
> EIDs, we'll be
> able to use the legacy space more densely, giving us extended life  
> in that
> part of the space.

Right.

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