Dino, I understand that the problem you describe is a concern but I do not think it is related to the proposal in the draft. The way to know if you have contiguous multicast connectivity is to use a separate routing topology for your multicast RPF information than what you use for unicast. If multicast specific information is not available then the risk of connectivity gaps is always present even without LISP.
Isidor On 27 Mar 2013, at 8:16 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> Right. But that only solves part of the problem. If you solve the whole >>> problem you won't need the mapping solution. What if 3 ETRs, all connected >>> to a multicast access network and the ITR also connected to a multicast >>> access network are connected together by a non-multicast network. Just >>> because the edges have the connectivity, doesn't mean the edges WILL GET >>> multicast packets delivered. >> >> You could also know you have reachability by having say a SAFI 1 route >> in BGP for the root RLOC. > > And what if BGP is not used? What if the xTR is a mobile phone? > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
