[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Renumbering...
|> If PI is available, then all users will tend to cling to it,
|> avoiding any
|> other possible solution. Our entire job is to give them an
|> alternative.
|
|No not true. Since PI addressing is so popular and saves so much in
|opex, we should come up with a solution that allows or embraces it.
<tweet>
Mutual misunderstanding, 10 yard penalty on both sides, replay of down.
</tweet>
When Noel was talking about PI addressing, I thought that we were talking
about continuing the legacy process of handing out true addresses.
Obviously, if we change to a locator/identifier solution, then we replace
those with identifiers. Let's *not* confuse the issue by mixing PI and
identifiers. They are completely different.
|We have said this many times before in LISP fora, PI addresses
|used at
|sites are the EID-prefixes that map to topologically aggregatable
|locators.
That's confusing at best... While you may be allocating them from the same
number pool, an EID prefix is *not* the same as a PI address. In
particular, if someone starts advertising that EID prefix into normal BGP,
is that going to be propagated? Hopefully not. The last I heard, you were
talking about aggregating EID prefixes.
Tony
--
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