> 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
Agree, we have moved the conversation to solving another problem. One that needs to be solved. If you have a hammer and no nails, you can't nail anything in but you can use the hammer for some other purpose. > 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. Right, but the spirit of overlays is to solve such problems. Dino > > 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
