> Do you agree that Options 1, 2 and 3 are all bad ideas? I can't with a binary answer.
Without verification (option 1) is the way most implementations will go. Just like we don't do source checks on every router by default today. Option 2 is definitely useful if the map-cache entry is already there. Should one create one by doing a lookup. Well that is a lot of work and would have scaling implications if not rate-limited properly from a message rate as well as a cache size perspective. > Also, before I ask a dumb question, can you point me at something that I can > read that describes how the entry in Option 4 is used? If not, could you > provide some detail? There is nothing to read. It was a newer idea. Not all good (and bad ideas) are written down but could be hidden in code. :-) Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
