RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol

Thankfully, I missed most of the earlier threads related
to this. But, on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right.
What the IETF protocol known as LISP calls "identifiers" are
actually IP addresses. And, IP addresses name *interfaces*;
they do not name *end systems*. Same is true also of IRON.

Thanks - Fred
fred(_dot_)l(_dot_)templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
> Behalf Of Robin Whittle
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:34 AM
> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
>
> I wrote another explanation of why the LISP protocol does not 
> involve a
> separate namespace for Identifiers - and so why it is not a Loc-ID
> Separation protocol.
>
>   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/lisp-not-loc-id/
>
> This is a longer version of my arguments earlier in this 
> thread because
> it assumes no knowledge of the LISP protocol or of the IRTF Routing
> Research Group work in recent years on scalable routing.
>
> Its good that the LISP protocol, Ivip and Iron are not Locator -
> Identifier Separation protocols:
>
>   "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions is good for hosts and should be
>   maintained    2010-06-22
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html
>
>  - Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf