I had already thought of that. I'll take action item to do it. Dino
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is this be written down somewhere? Should it be? (In the LCAF spec maybe?) > Yours, > Joel > >> On 9/30/14, 11:54 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Sorted based on AFI. Which means LCAF/Type when multiple LCAF encodings >> occur. So if an locator-set had these addresses, they would be sorted in the >> following order: >> >> AFI=1, <ipv4-address> >> AFI=2, <ipv6-address> >> AFI=16387, LCAF-type=5, <geo-coordinates> >> AFI=16387, LCAF-type=10, <elp> >> >> Dino >> >>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Albert López <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We have seen that, according to RFC 6830, the locators appearing in a Map >>> Reply must be "sorted in order of ascending IP address where an IPv4 >>> locator address is considered numerically 'less than' an IPv6 locator >>> address". How should the locators be sorted if we also have LCAF addresses >>> like ELP? >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Albert >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
