Dino,
On 3/5/18, 5:00 PM, "Dino Farinacci" <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Using IPv6 format is something we considered while writing the draft. We went
the LCAF route to have an explicit way to (1) distinguish ILA
Identifiers/Locators from other addresses in the Mapping System, (2) specify
the Identifier/Locator length and (3) include metadata bits. However, for
simple scenarios (only ILA domain, no overlapping with non-local addresses, no
multiple SIR prefixes, fixed Identifier length, no need for metadata bits, etc)
things could work with AFI=2 format. If the rough consensus from the WG(s) is
that a plain AFI=2 format is sufficient, we can certainly update the draft. I
would like to know the opinion of others on this.
Alberto
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
