I reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08, and my memory is that the only significant technical question was regarding the "D" bit in Map-Request messages.
Thinking back on it, I believe that the difficulty I was having was with the explanation of the D bit, not its functionality. In particular, a DDT server can share a node and a listening port with a Map-Server. Both of these servers process Map-Request messages, albeit with different semantics. Hence the D bit in Map-Request messages is needed to differentiate which server is to process a given Map-Request message. My suggestion is that the document define the D bit in this way. Once that is done, it's obvious for a particular client sending a particular message whether the D bit should be set. Compare with the current description, which speaks of the D bit as if it is a classification of the sender of the Map-Request, which leads to conceptual problems because it requires the document to define the classification and ensure that all possible clients are properly classified. (Ideally, I would advocate that a DDT Map-Request should have a different type code than a Map-Server Map-Request. But I'm sure that it is too late to put that fix into existing deployments.) Dale _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
