> On 12 Feb 2015, at 05:39, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >
[snip] > >> So it makes perfect sense to register multicast addresses to the mapping >>> system as EIDs and they can map to RLOCs of sites that have joined the >>> group. >> >> As part of this, I strongly recommend moving away from use of "G" to refer to >> multicast groups in both the overlay and underlay. Careful use of G-EID >> and G-RLOC would significantly improve clarity. > > Well we have not used G-EID in any documentation. And since we want to > encourage the use of SSM in the underlay and how we signal in the overlay, we > simply call the "eid" the 2-tuple (S,G). I second DIno on this point. In the evolution of this document one discussion point was about the terminology to use. The final choice was to avoid to introduce any terminology not used in the current set of RFCs. Introducing “G-EID” and "G-RLOC” would go against that decision (and confuse the reader since it will never agin find such terms). What if we drop the dashes? G-EID => the EID multicast group G G-RLOC => the RLOC multicast group G Yes bit prolix! Could this work? Luigi _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
