> From: "Lori Jakab" <[email protected]>
> Damien is suggesting we recommend LSB not to be used for the
> Internet-wide deployment of LISP, see below.
> What do you think?
I never liked the blasted things anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep if
we did!
(I don't remember off the top of my head why I didn't like them: I think it
was a combination of the fixed number of bits, the fact that it might be
difficult for ETR X to know the state of ETR Y, the fact that 'reachable from
ITR A' [which you _really_ need to have anyway] is a subset of 'up', etc,
etc. But we didn't desperately need the header bits, and the mechanism wasn't
positively harmful, so I didn't bother to put up a big fight over it... :-)
> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
> I thought the point of the locator status bits was to tell me whether
> the individual ETRs were up, and had connectivity to the site that they
> are serving.
Yes, that's my understanding too.
> If so, then the unpredictability of reachability across the net from
> the ITR(s) to the individual ETRs would seem to be irrelevant.
See comment above... :-)
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
