On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Looking at the map-reply message format, I am concerned about its >> size. By my count, it's 40 bytes to provide one record with one >> locator where record and locator are 8 bytes. If we need to scale a >> system to billions of nodes this overhead could be an issue even if >> it's the control plane. Is there any plan to have a compressed version >> of this. For instance ,if there is only one RLOC returned wouldn't the >> priorities and weights be useless? > > My comment about this spec is that you really don’t need a LCAF format to > format the addresses. You can use AFI=2 and use IPv6 format. That will reduce > the size. > > But if you start compressing out fields, reality will set in and new features > will be added and you’ll be back where we started. You want to multi-home, > don’t you?
There are a bunch of reserved and unused flag bits in the message format. One could define flag-fields to make the messages extensible and variable length (without resorting to TLVs!). Tom _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp