Hi Dino, A large portion of this draft discusses the state machine required for TCP and how to ensure the MS and xTR are in sync. We literally reuse the entire UDP map-register code, we just wrap that message around the LISP TCP header so there's a lot of code reuse. Finally, this draft is not meant to replace UDP register but in some of our use cases TCP would scale better to avoid the periodic registration.
-Johnson > On Dec 5, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> registration protocol, that might be orthogonal to other transport-related >> mechanisms. In my experience this has proved to be very effective in >> scalability of large LISP deployments, especially with the increased volume >> of registration data. > > I agree it’s a point solution for registration. Then why did you need to have > a general format. > > I could support this draft if it was simplified to spec how to use > Map-Registers in TCP and nothing more. > > The only thing I would add is how to use TLS so encryption is supported. More > and more requirements are coming up for protecting the privacy of location > information. And since Map-Registers carry RLOCs (and potential > Geo-Coordnates) that information needs to be protected. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
