Sure Joel. The xTR-ID in the Map-Request was originally defined for the PubSub draft [1]. In that document, it is used as a way to unequivocally identify subscribers to a mapping.
However, we believe that it may have value besides that specific use-case and that RFC6833bis would be a better place to define it. Thanks, Alberto [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-00 On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > I can well believe that is useful. > It would help you you provided use case? > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 9/19/17 10:34 PM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We would like to suggest updating rfc6833bis [1] to include the xTR-ID in >> the Map-Request, in the same way that is already defined for the >> Map-Register. >> >> In particular, we propose to update the Map-Request message format in >> page 10 to include an I-bit right next to the m-bit (i.e. the I-bit would >> be in position 11). We suggest the following text to be included in page >> 11, after the explanation of the m-bit: >> >> “I: This is the xTR-ID bit. When this bit is set, a 128-bit xTR-ID field >> followed by a 64-bit Site-ID field are appended to the end of the >> Map-Request, immediately following the last EID-Record (or the Map-Reply >> Record, if present).” >> >> Let us know what you think. >> >> Thanks, >> Alberto >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
