On 6 Dec 2013, at 2:39 am, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
s/guarantee/provide/ there are no guarantees in this world! s/Legacy Internet/non-LISP Internet/ The prospects of LISP prevailing in time are by no means assured and the use of the term "Legacy" in this context is neither informative or even remotely accurate at present. Remove it. > announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as > part of larger aggregates. s/part of large aggregates/more specifics/ please use terminology that is consistent with standard routing terms. In this case the text is referring to "more specifics" so please use that term. The text would also add the sentence: "The intended scope of these more specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated limited by the PITR to reflect local routing policies." > > > 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]. s/used as a normal prefix/advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the non-LISP inter-domain routing environment/ > > > Do you folks think this is OK? > Not yet. Please review these suggested specific changes. Geoff _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
