> Dino - > > I - of course - defer to you as regards all things LISP. And if the use of > RTR is already widespread, then please ignore my comment.
Thanks. > That said, I do not see use of "RTR" in RFC 6830. I see ITR and ETR and their > TE equivalents, but I do not see "RTR". > ??? That has been noticed by many and the definition has been put in the 6830bis draft. Sorry about referring to 6830 when I should have said draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08. > The definition of Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is fine. It is just that > when I saw "RTR" used in the text I had to go back to the terminology section > because otherwise I thought you were just talking about a "Router”. A sign that you have been doing routers (aka RTRs) too long. ;-) Dino > > Les > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:59 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free- >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free- >> multicast-07.txt >> >>> The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded. >>> >>> I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason that >>> it intuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors >>> could >> >> Les, I understand your concern here. However, RTR is littered throughout >> many LISP documents as well as in product documentation and >> implementations. We have clearly defined it in the base documents and for >> any new use-case of an RTR, it is explained in the use-case documents. >> >> I really think it is too late. The term will continue to be used even if IETF >> changes the documents. And adding a new term could add confusion (you’d >> have to clarify everywhere that an RTR and a ReTR is the same thing). >> >>> consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this >>> document has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG >>> review. I have >> >> RTR was introduced in a general way in RFC6830 which dates even further >> back in time. And the component has added NAT functionality, TE >> functionality, and in this document multicast functionality. >> >>> not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this >>> document. Perhaps this point has been considered and consensus has >>> been that the RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to disregard >> my suggestion, but as someone who read this document for the first time I >> found myself looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times as I >> read >> through the text. >> >> Do you believe the definition is sufficient? This is what’s in the current >> document: >> >> Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that >> implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section 8 >> of the main LISP specification [RFC6830]. A LISP RTR performs packet >> re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first >> removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a new >> LISP header to an egress packet. >> >> Dino >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
