> On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:47, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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.
Does it clear state what the ETR has to do when it receives a Map-Request with multiple EIDs? L. > 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
