Yes, that would do it.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 3:41 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I can change the spec to be more specific as you suggest. Would that work for
you?
Dino
On Oct 16, 2023, at 12:38 PM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
To point to one example of the problem, this draft defines "push based" as
using multicast. Decent uses multicast. But not all push based systems use multicast.
The definitions of push-based and pull-based should be general. Decent-pulll and
decent-push (or some other terms) can be defined as this document uses them.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 3:36 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Relative to the LISP mapping system, the terms pull-based and push-based long
predate this draft. There was an original push-based mapping system proposed
(in which all mappings were pushed to all ITRs). While we decided not to
advance that,
Right, the LISP-Decent pushed-based uses multicast. The other one, NERD, used
management protocols and not a control plane if I recall.
the term had an understood meaning. Also, pull-based and push-based have
well-defined meaning in many contexts. This draft
The pull-based is what all the mapping systems are using. For LISP-Decent we
wanted to distinguish the pull-based mechanism based on hashing from the
push-base multicast method.
seems to use those terms in a rather idiosyncratic (not incorrect, but
confusing) fashion. I am not sure whether different terms or additional
qualifiers are the better solution.
Did I make it clearer?
Dino
Yours,
Joel
On 10/16/2023 9:40 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
The LISP WG has placed draft-farinacci-lisp-decent in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Luigi Iannone)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-decent/
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
