On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Damien Saucez <[email protected]> > > > I would have a question, if there is capability, it means that there is > > a possibility to meet no capability so in this case what is replied? > > ... > > If 0 locators then it is a negative reply but conceptually this is not > > a negative reply. If no answer, then the requester will keep continuing > > sending requests. > > Good points. > > In general, I don't think we should keep tweaking Map-Request and Map-Reply > messages 'because they are there'. If we need to extend semantics, let's do > it right.
Keep tweaking existing things to support all sort of new idea only lead to complexity, and more problem somewhere down the road. But I do see the need for that Dino describe. > > If a new message, what kind of message? > > The has been some discussion about adding a new message-type to fill a > variety of roles which involve transferring information around (e.g. > dynamically loading configuration information such as default PxTRs into > small xTRs, a la DHCP, instead of having to manuall configure them). > > This would seem to naturally fall into that general classification? I would support doing this as a new message in the form of a framework to support existing idea, new idea and future needs. Sort of a version 2 extension. You don't need it, but if you support it an use it you get access to a whole range of cool and fancy extension of LISP :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
