Hi, I will not be in Atlanta this time round, but will try to listen in and comment via Jabber if there is a reason to.
My comments, unsurprisingly, relate to the mapping systems in these drafts. In the architecture draft, Noel rightly points out NERD's characteristics, but states that a particular mapping system has been "chosen". One solution is better than two, quite frankly, from an interoperability standpoint, and that work goes on with LISP-ALT, I would suggest that the architecture properly delineate the mapping function from packet format and processing. There are different ways to play the "State Game". And this should also be clear in the intro, where Noel talks about fate sharing. One of the problems with NERD is that it doesn't do fate sharing, but rather expects that reachibility** testing is done between ETR & ITR through locator status bits. My point here isn't so much to rehash NERD as it is to make clear in the architecture the right layers so that The Next Mapping System that Yakov writes can plug in easily ;-) Eliot
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
