They have the same meaning in all environment. It is a question when they should be verified. An LSB that changes in a public environment can cause a Map-Request to be sent and a signed Map-Reply can verify the LSB in an authenticated matter.
Dino On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
