If I am reading this exchange properly, Dino, you are saying you do not
want LISP ITRs to follow the general router advice from RFC 4443.
Is this a matter of taste?
Is there a technical difference that should be stated why different
behavior may be appropriate?
Yours,
Joel
On 6/27/2011 12:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
