Hello Joel, > I am also concerned that this is removing several features that the working > group has, up till now, deemed important.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. You mean the collision with draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-00 ? (and other drafts which I may have missed) Or do you mean that N/E/V must be zero when P=1 ? How is this different from e.g. N/E must be zero when V=1 ? Regards, Marc On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:04:15 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am very concerned about the compatibility behavior of this. > If the sender is setting the P bit, and the next header, then he presumably > thinks that is useful to the receiver. If the receiver is ignoring the P > bit, and ignoring the field occupied by the next-header, how will the > receiver know what the content is? Are we assuming that the sender will > magically know what packet type the receiver expects, even though the > sender is capable of sending several different packet types? > > I am also concerned that this is removing several features that the working > group has, up till now, deemed important. If this gpe is important, then > we will have to ensure that we do not count on any of those features for > reliable operation. If that is our intent, then the document really needs > to say so explicitly so that WG adoption actually represents agreement to > those constraints. > > Yours, > Joel _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
