Subject: Re: [lisp] Telling EIDs, RLOCs, and 'old' IPv4 addresses apart

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:57:29 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>

    > The problem is that it isn't only the LISP-speaking routers that need
    > to handle 240/4 ("class E") addressing; all transit routers between
    > LISP sites will need to handle them as well. ... To use 240/4 as RLOC
    > space, the entire routing "core" needs to accept them. 

I guess I was looking ahead to a time when there's a significant chunk of the
network which is a LISP 'core', and in which the routing tables contain only
RLOCs (and I guess 'legacy addresses' as well, although there are ways to get
rid of them too).

(We need to get to that if LISP is going to have the largest positive impact
on routing tables; if all 'core' routing tables have to contain all 'legacy
addresses', plus EIDs (so legacy hosts can get to converted hosts), and also
RLOCs (for transit), then we can only save a few spaces, since EID and RLOC
blocks will hopefully be considerably more aggregated than legacy blocks.)

In such a circumstance, we'd only have to make sure the routers in the LISP
'core' understood class E RLOCs; routes to them wouldn't need to circulate in the
'legacy' part of the network (since legacy hosts will never be trying to send
packets to an RLOC anyway).

	Noel