> Could I not do the above even if the EID-prefix DID NOT EXIST? Or are we > restricting any application of policy only to LISP EID-prefixes, and not to > non-LISP prefixes?
No, it would be either. > The map-replies suggested in the new text would effectively be NMRs, correct? > i.e. Map-replies with empty locator sets and the ACT bits set. The definition of a Negative Map-Reply is one with a empty RLOC-set. I will make that more clear in the definition and the description on how to return different actions. > If that is the intent, maybe we need to revise the definitions for NMR and > ACT as I think right now there is some inconsistency/contradiction: > > a) NMR definition - Issued in response to queries only for EIDs that DO NOT > EXIST > b) ACT bits specification - for use in NMRs ONLY > c) New text describing how the ACT bits are used to specify forwarding > behavior for EIDs that DO EXIST Agree 100%. See new diff file. > So NMRs are exclusive to non-existent or non-registered EIDs (a) and ACT bits > are exclusive to NMRs (b). Yet (c) implies that NMRs will be used for EIDs > that DO EXIST. So (c) contradicts (a). No, not really. “Exist” is too general a term. We should say “not registered”. Let me know if new text is better. Thanks, Dino
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
