>>In this case, do you think we should allow all AFIs as well? >For this one accepting MACs for example seems a bit odd. Even DNs. >The usage of this LCAF seems very oriented to defining a route. If we could >find an easy way to >describe v4, v6 and only those LCAFs that can complement >v4 and v6 hops. >Not sure how to be precise here.
[AR] How about something along the lines of “If LCAF is used, the most inner address within the LCAF (or nested LCAFs) must be v4 or v6"
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
