Dino,
But isn't it troubling that the bits have one meaning in a controlled
environment and another in the great-wide Internet?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Dino Farinacci
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 5:51 PM
> To: Noel Chiappa
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; lisp-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Should we use Locator-Status-Bits in Internet
> deployment?
>
> > (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... :-)
>
> Maybe because they could be spoofed?
>
> But they are good in control environments to take ETRs out of service
> without having to update the mapping database.
>
> Dino
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
