Inherited hangover from the last charter... It can go I think. The awareness of what LISP is, and is not, is substantially different now than before - so I am happy to trim this section out.
Cheers Terry On 2/12/11 4:28 PM, "Dino Farinacci" <d...@cisco.com> wrote: >> LISP supports the separation of the IPv4 and IPv6 address space >> following a network-based map-and-encapsulate scheme (RFC 1955). In >> LISP, both identifiers and locators are IP addresses. In LISP, >> identifiers are composed of two parts: a "global" portion that uniquely >> identifies a particular site and a "local" portion that identifies an >> interface within a site. The "local" portion may be subdivided to >> identify a particular network within the site. For a given identifier, >> LISP maps the "global" portion of the identifier into a set of locators >> that can be used by de-capsulation devices to reach the identified >> interface; as a consequence a host would typically change identifiers >> when it moves from one site to another or whenever it moves from one >> subnet to another within an site. Typically, the same IP address will >> not be used as an identifier >> and locator in LISP. > > This entire paragraph is so misleading and it is not documented in any LISP > specification that an identifier is composed of two parts. > > Also, in the LISP architecture, an EID or RLOC can be other than an IPv4 or > IPv6 address. > > And an EID does not need to change when a host moves from one site to another. > > So, more to the point, why is this definition in the charter? > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
