> So... I think it's good to document what people will see in the wild. A 254 > priority is probably a good signal that one is dealing with a lispers.net > implementation. To me at least, the goal here should be to permit the > documenting of that use. Documenting that in an RFC seems like a good idea, > but publishing such "squatting" in an RFC doesn't seem like a good idea. So > how to move forward? I'm seeking pragmatic answers to that question.
That is not true. A value of 254 means that the RLOC has a pretty low priority in usage. That is, if an ITR receives an RLOC-set with 254 in it, it will use it. Note, a lispers.net map-server will return ONLY 254 RLOCs to an ITR in which the ITR uses spec rules to decide which one to use. Also note, the WG cannot say how priorities are used. It is a deployment and policy issue for the LISP overlay operater. All the spec says is that 1 takes priority over 255 in selecting which RLOCs are used for encapsulation. The implementation is really NOT violating the spec and the decision of the extra semantic meaning on 254 is only in a lispers.net map-server. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
