>> 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
There is no wart because consensus appears that we should not do Capability negotiation. > 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... That is entirely different. So what are you thinking we need to add that requires another message type? Dino > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
