Hi all I have reviewed the document and I am fine the way it is.
We have implemented LISP mobility clients in several platforms and the main complexity comes from NAT Traversal and the many different corner cases that a developer needs to take into account. I think that the WG should focus on this (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal/) too when considering mobility. Albert On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > Dino is right. > Please comment on the document. > > Thanks > > Luigi > > > On 17 Apr 2018, at 00:25, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can do an update before expiration but this would be a good time to > receive comments from anyone in the working group. > > Thanks in advance, > Dino > > Begin forwarded message: > > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > From: IETF Secretariat <[email protected]> > Date: April 16, 2018 at 7:42:11 AM EDT > Resent-To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Expiration impending: <draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01.txt> > > The following draft will expire soon: > > Name: draft-ietf-lisp-mn > Title: LISP Mobile Node > State: I-D Exists > Expires: 2018-04-26 (in 1 week, 2 days) > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
