Hi all, Regarding the multiplexing draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux/), these are the next steps we would consider: 1) Signaling: How to signal that some traffic flows will be multiplexed. We would use LCAF, as suggested by Dino in July: > You could also use the “Encapsulation Format” LCAF type which tells the ITR, on a > lookup what the ETR is willing to accept. We COULD treat this new capability as a > different encapsulation type. > > Dino Our plan is to include this in the next version of the draft, and in the implementation. 2) How to distinguish between a multiplexed and a non-multiplexed packet (once the negotiation is finished). In the ETR we must be able to distinguish between a multiplexed and a non-multiplexed packet. There would be two options for this: a) the use of a port number different from 4341 in the UDP header preceding the LISP header. b) something in the LISP header that flags the fact. We are currently using a) in the draft, and also in the implementation (https://github.com/Simplemux/lispmob-with-simplemux), but perhaps b) could be considered instead. Any thoughts? Jose PS: We have also received some feedback about an adaptive encapsulation scheme that maximizes the number IP packets encapsulated into a single one (see <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4151444> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4151444).
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
