Since we have said repeatedly we waat this to work, it should be stated.
If it is already stated, I apologize but I can not find it. The
section you quoted from the ToC doesn't.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/22/2011 6:32 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
f) Sec 5: There is no indication in the packet formats that IPv4 in
>> IPv6 or IPv6 in IPv4 SHOULD be supported. I don't care about long
>> format sections - but at a minimum, there should be a paragraph that
>> specifies the encapsulation possibilities:
>>
>> "A LISP packet consists of an outer header, a UDP header, and an
>> inner header. The following combinations MUST be supported:
>> i) IPv4 outer header and IPv4 inner header (in Sec. 5.1)
>> ii) IPv6 outer header and IPv4 inner header
>> iii) IPv6 outer header and IPv6 inner header (in Sec 5.2)
>> iv) IPv4 outer header and IPv6 inner header "
>
> I don't understand this comment. The summary is in the table of contents
> section names:
>
> 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
> 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
> 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
> 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Right - there is no description of DIFFERENT IP VERSIONS - e.g. IPv6 in IPv4
or IPv4 in IPv6
NOWHERE in the draft is this specifically said to be allowed or expected,
but list conversations certainly imply it.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
