Given that Brian has signed off on the current version, and that this is
explicitly on the IESG agenda, I would like Brian's confirmation that
posting a new version is acceptable (it seems like a good idea to me.)
Yours,
Joel
On 2/13/15 8:51 AM, Black, David wrote:
Yes. I think we've discussed and reached conclusions on everything except
whether
to add text on the IPv6 UDP zero checksum topic. Could I suggest submission of
a -12 version of the draft that captures everything that's been
discussed/resolved?
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:38 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: Dino Farinacci; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert Cabellos; Damien
Saucez; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote:
"can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same output as
its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" and that
needs to be corrected.
Excellent progress thanks.
So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer multicast
groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the underlay
provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay.
Did I get it right?
L.
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: Luigi Iannone; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert Cabellos; Damien
Saucez; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control overlay's
group
address allocation.
Dino
On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely clear
that
the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that mapping
between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
To: Luigi Iannone
Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected]; Albert Cabellos;
Damien
Saucez; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
G-EID => the EID multicast group G
G-RLOC => the RLOC multicast group G
"inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP
multicast
documents.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
