> From: Eliot Lear <[email protected]>
>> If an ITR detects any transition (0 -to-1 or 1-to-0), verify it
> Oh and s/ITR/ETR/ right?
No, I don't think so. LSBs are used to tell ITRs the status of ETRs, so
ITRs are the things which will use them - and should verify them.
But, to make a larger point, I don't think asking the mapping system is
really going to be the way to verify any changes - the whole point of LSBs (I
thought) was to cover an interim level of dynamics between i) changing the
mappings (i.e. updating the mapping system) and really dynamic stuff (e.g.
reachability failures). So I don't think status changes reflected in the LSB
would _necessarily_ show up in the mapping database.*
(* One use I heard postulated for LSBs was if you wanted to change the
mapping, and permanently _remove_ an ETR, since ITRs might not pick up a new
mapping entry right away, you could mark it 'down' in the LSBs. Or something
like that... I forget how you tell which bits in an LSB correspond to what
RLOCs. And of course I think that was before mapping sequence/version numbers
came in, which allow an ITR to quickly discover that it has an outdate
mapping.)
Maybe I'm confused, but I'm still not hearing why the LSB buys us anything
above and beyond what we have to have anyway: i) mappings, and some way to
detect that an ITR has an outdated copy of one, and ii) reachability (which
necessarily has to discover, on a fairly real-time basis, a superset of 'up').
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
