> To avoid misinterpretation I would change the following sentence currently in > the document (section 4) > > To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix may be > announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as > part of larger aggregates (ideally just the entire LISP EID block). > > in just > > To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet EID prefixes may be > announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as > part of larger aggregates.
Could you use "restrictively announced"? Or "announced with heavy policy applied"? Dino > > > and conclude the section with the paragraph (proposed in previous discussion > with Geoff): > > The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be > used as normal prefix. Interworking between the EID block sub-prefixes > and the non-LISP Internet is done according to [RFC6832] > and [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. > > > Do you folks think this is OK? _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
