Hi Noel,
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:43 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
Subject: RE: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
> From: "Templin, Fred L"
<Fred(_dot_)L(_dot_)Templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com>
> one to one correspondence with the end system's multiple VPN
> connections. The internal virtual interfaces keep the
VPNs separate.
As logically separate sources for incoming/outbound packets,
they are just
like multiple real interfaces. The name used for neither is really the
'identity' of the host, the names applied to those things
just identify
sources/sinks of packets.
>> Suppose I assign two endpoint identifiers to a host.
Which is the
>> host's identity?
> Neither - that's the point. The host's identify is not
bound to any one
> or multiple IP addresses.
I said "endpoint identifiers" (under whatever definition of
that term one
wishes to use), not "addresses".
OK, so then let's consider a related analogy. It is
not uncommon for a person (e.g., John Doe) to have
dual citizenship with countries A and B, i.e, John
"interfaces" with both countries. John would receive
a separate taxpayer identifier from each of A and B,
which has relevance only within the respective
country's "routing system". But, John's identity is
neither A nor B; John's identity is John.
So, a single host can have multiple identities (whether one
does so via
multiple interfaces/interface addresses, or endpoint identifiers). So?
No; not multiple identities. One identity; multiple
interfaces and multiple addresses. Same as for the
taxpayer ID analogy.
Thanks - Fred
fred(_dot_)l(_dot_)templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf