And this verify behavior is exactly what our IOS implementation does.

-Darrel
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to