> Hi, > >>> specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block >>> would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where >>> the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is >>> looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like >>> Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an >> >> This is totally wrong. PITR, by definition, are not decapsulators. > > The example is correct, and the PITR in the example is an encapsulator. The > ITR->PETR bit is encapsulated. The PETR->PITR bit is unencapsulated (probably > BGP routed) internet traffic, and the PITR->ETR bit is encapsulated again.
Then the example is not coded properly. It nees to be more specific for accuracy: source (native forward) -> ITR (encap) -> PETR (native forward) -> PITR (encap) -> ETR (native forward) -> dest Dino > > Cheers! > Sander > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
