Dino,
That is to say, "silent on the matter"?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:27 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: Alia Atlas; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last call for draft-ietf-lisp-12
> Dino,
>
> Maybe I am misreading you, but your response to me seems to
> contradict your response to Alia. When Alia asked, you said,
> "Experimentation will tell us more on what to do." When I asked, you
> seemed to have made up your mind about following the recommendation
> of RFC 4443.
>
> Which is it?
I want to leave the spec as is.
Dino
>
> Ron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:07 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Alia Atlas; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Last call for draft-ietf-lisp-12
>
>> Dino,
>>
>> Why not take the advice of RFC 4443? It says that a router SHOULD
>> send an ICMP message.
>
> Why duplicate what another document is specifying? The LISP router
> should send an ARP also when it decaps and the EID is directly
> connected. Should we specify that as well?
>
> Dino
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> 4) Generally, a section specifying ITR behavior in regard to packets
>>> is missing.
>>> i) For instance, if an ITR receives a Negative Map Reply indicated
>>> "drop", should the ITR send an ICMP Destination Unreachable with
>>> Host Unreachable?
>>
>> We did not want to specify this because in practice when this is done
>> either the ICMP messages are either rate-limited or filtered so ICMP
>> is not a reliable mechanism.
>>
>> Experimentation will tell us more on what to do.
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
