>> As you can see there is a lot of text that would need to be written. Which I >> think is too late for RFC6833bis. > > Why late? Dino, as you mentioned in your previous mail if we want to provide > specification for this use than now is the time.
My point is, we may not be able to justify a real use-case for Map-Requesting multiple EID-records. But to ask for all records that are more specific then a a prefix you request makes sense to solve the use-case, I think Med wants to solve. That is reloading your map-cache on an ITR when it restarts. I made a suggestion but haven’t received any feedback on it yet. > Otherwise we have to state that the current specification does not provide > anything about multiple records and hence they shouldn’t be used. The specification does specify that you can put multiple EIDs in a Map-Request, it just doesn’t say why you should. And we need to have a well defined use-case before we can write any meaningful text. > Up to the WG to decide whether or not is the time to do it. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
