> Is that a SHOULD or a MUST? From the text quoted below, I assume that it is a > SHOULD.
It is a SHOULD because in controlled/trusted environments we don't want to require the overhead of a verifying Map-Request. Dino > > Ron > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:47 PM >> To: Ronald Bonica >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [lisp] gleaned mappings >> >> The spec says that gleanings are verified by sending a Map-Request to >> the mapping database system. >> >> Dino >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> In Section 4.1 of the draft-ietf-lisp you say: >>> >>> In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse >>> direction, an ETR MAY create a cache entry that maps the source EID >>> (inner header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer header >>> source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry >> is >>> termed a "gleaned" mapping and only contains a single RLOC for the >>> EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs >>> SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-Request for that EID. >> Both >>> ITR and the ETR may also influence the decision the other makes in >>> selecting an RLOC. See Section 6 for more details. >>> >>> Has anyone thought through the security implications and possible >> unexpected side effects of these "gleaned" mappings? >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
