On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 2:46 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The Map-Request registry can point to both 9301 and the new LISP PubSub >> RFC. >> > > That works, yes. > > I was wondering about the fact that the message itself just grew an extra > 2 fields. > > > It shouldn’t have. > > Which fields are you referring to? If you are referring to site-ID and > xTR-ID, those are existing fields in the Map-Register message (and not the > Mal-Request message). > I'm referring to the xTR-ID field and Site-ID field, both of which appear to be described as being "added to the Map-Request message defined in Section 5.2 of [RFC9301]", per Section 4 of the draft.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
