>
>
> 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 some way to detect that an ITR has an outdated copy of one, and ii)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, Dino,
Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions regarding LSB function. Now, I think
that we are in a better position to discuss Noel's question, above.
Dino has suggested that the LSB provides a convenient way for ETRs to inform
ITRs that locators have been taken in or out of service. This can be done
without involving the mapping service.
However, the mechanism only works in "controlled environments". Furthermore,
even in controlled environments, when the LSB==1, the ITR still has to test for
reachability. This is because a locator can be in service, but unreachable from
a particular ITR. (I am not sure about this, but when the LSB==0, might the ITR
have to test for reachability anyway, just to ensure that things haven't
changed).
Do I have this much right?
If so, does the LSB offer enough to be worth the complexity and processor load.
Ron
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
