> c) In Sec 7.2, there is a sentence: "Should a receiving ITR decide
> that it does not wish to store such more-specific information, it has
> the option of discarding it as long as a shorter, covering EID-prefix
> exists." I found this confusing and it seems to violate the prefix
> rules in [LISP], as well as they were described.
After further consideration and discussion, I agree that such discarding of
more-specific map cache entries would be a bad idea. Even in cases where
it could be done without adverse traffic forwarding impact (such as when the
covering route and the more-specifics share the same set of RLOCs) it would
add complexity to the cache management problem.
This sentence has been removed in the upcoming version 7 of the ALT spec.
--Vince
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
