Brian, I would rather see all the uses of LispAddressType have the lower limit of the associated length fields changed to zero but given your concern on the number of changes to the document I think just changing lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength would satisfy the current requirement.
thanks Isidor On Feb 6, 2015, at 17:44, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > Isidor, > > On 2/6/15 10:19 AM, Isidoros Kouvelas (kouvelas) wrote: >> Brian, >> >> I am not sure what the minimum length of 5 could correspond to given >> the minimum length of an IPv4 address will be 8 octets (including two >> for AFI, one for the internal length field and one for the mask >> length). So I would be interested in the discussion context you refer >> to. > > It turns out that the discussion during review was with the upper limit. > I can't find any reference to discussions on the lower limit. Authors? > >> >> Regarding the unspecified address specification I think that making >> it explicit (zero length) would be cleaner than encoding a special >> address. To limit the number of changes to the MIB we could only fix >> the LispAddressType octet string definition as well as >> lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength. >> >> Regarding the example below, the normal case is that all EID prefixes >> are configured on the Map-Server and then registered by the xTRs. >> Reporting the MS as the RegisterSender of the EID prefixes that have >> not been registered would not work. > > So, is your suggestion to change the lower limit on the TC and the lower > limit for just the lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength? > > I would still like some input from others in the WG on this issue. > > Regards, > Brian > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
