> From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>
> There is no need for a new message. That would complicate matters and
> create more combinations to deal with when receiving responses.
Huh? Less complication than a(nother) wart on Map-Request/Map-Replies? I fail
to see why a new (clean) packet-type would be any extra complexity. (My take
is that it's only illusory that re-using Map-Request/Map-Replies would be
less complexity.)
Sure, if the was the _only_ thing we were going to add, maybe we could tack
it onto the side of Map-Request/Map-Replies - but when you take into account
that we have a bunch of other things we'd like to do...
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
