Dear authors,
I learn from the TE draft that LISP can utilize re-encapsulating tunnels mostly done in control plane, especially the mapping system to realize more efficient traffic engineering. That’s great. On the other hand, the draft proposes the recursive approach that *prepend*s more than one header. I'm confused of the *header*. Is the header consisted of outer IP header and LISP header, or just IP header (assuming the IP underlay network)? I want to make it clear whether the writing of 'recursive' means utilizing the TE capabilities of underlay network. (referring to the second example of recursion in 5.2) 1. If yes, I would argue that Section 5.2 in RFC 9300 describes the IPv6-in-IPv6 header format but it didn’t include the extensions of IPv6 header. Consequently, underlay TE is not available in this case since segment routing header(RFC 8754) requires the use of extension header. (Unless another IP header that involves extension header is prepended) 2. If no, it says that LISP has to prepend more headers (IP header or LISP header, or both of them). Obviously, it could be not efficient enough. In this case, why not make it a more elegant way, for example, enabling LISP header to carry the RLOC record. Best, Hongyi
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
