I'm afraid thats its still unclear to me - "natively announced" is a term I do not understand.
Are you saying that all more specifics _and_ the aggregate /32 itself must not be advertised into the IPv6 global unicast network? Or are you saying that all more specifics of this /32 must not be advertised into IPv6 global unicast network, but the aggregate /32 should (must?) be advertised? i.e. is this /32 unreachable from the rest of the IPv6 net in its entirety, ore are you saying that any LISP gateways into this /32 must advertise the entire /32 and not just advertise more specifics? regards, Geoff On 3 Dec 2013, at 1:37 am, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > I agree that the sentence is unclear. > > The purpose was to make sure that people do not get an IP prefix for free and > inject it in BGP, so it is close your interpretation a). > > What about the following text: > > The prefix must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be > used as normal prefix, hence, it must be used according to [RFC6832] > and [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] and must not be natively announced in the > BGP routing infrastructure. > > Would this solve the issue? > > Luigi > > > >> The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and must not be announced in >> the BGP >> routing infrastructure. > > > > > On 2 Dec. 2013, at 02:40 , Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It may be minor, but the last sentence in section 4 is unclear. The txt I >> see is: >> >> >> ---------------- >> >> The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP >> routing infrastructure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in the BGP >> routing infrastructure. >> >> --------------- >> >> There is some error in the markup processing used to generate this draft, >> but the more >> substantive comment is that I can't clearly parse the sentence. >> >> Did the authors mean: >> >> >> a) The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and must not be announced in >> the BGP >> routing infrastructure. >> >> or >> >> b) The prefix must not be used as normal prefix but will (must?) be >> announced in the BGP >> routing infrastructure. >> >> or >> >> c) something else >> >> >> I would prefer to see this resolved before saying "we're done!" which I >> suppose is a >> "NO" response to the WGLC at this stage. >> >> regards, >> >> Geoff >> >> >> >> >> On 29 Nov 2013, at 12:39 pm, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> As requested in Vancouver, and after the authors updated the draft (to >>> -07) based on the Vancouver in-room discussion. >>> >>> This starts a 14 day last call for this document, the last call will end >>> on Friday the 13th December 2013. >>> >>> You will find its text here: >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt >>> >>> Please review this WG item and provide any last comments. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Terry >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
