Dino, In the particular case of the ELP LCAF individually do you still see a case for JSON with DN support (and no v4, v6?)
The text in the draft now says: The Explicit Locator Path (ELP) LCAF Type (Type 10) is used to carry a list of locators in an explicit re-encapsulation path. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-te<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-04.html#I-D.ietf-lisp-te>] for an example. (…) AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Do you have a particular example where JSONs and DNs could be used with ELPs? In that case, then Alvaro’s suggestion to expand AFI generically to all types in section 4.1 would seem the way to go. Alternatively, since this LCAF seems more oriented to be used for routed, we can still expand the text in the section to include LCAF usage within ELPs (but skip DNs and MACs). If this limitation applies, we could LCAF use when to the cases when it complements v4 and v6 hops, using Alberto’s proposal [AR] “If LCAF is used, the most inner address within the LCAF (or nested LCAFs) must be v4 or v6” Thoughts? Thanks, Marc From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 7:18 AM To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> Cc: Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) <[email protected]>; Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [lisp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-04.txt But don’t forget LCAFs can be used for non encapsulation purposes so there are cases where neither v4 or v6 AFIs would be used - meaning all other AFIs “could” be used. For example you could have an AFI list of LCAFs, where each item in the list is a line in a json file. That is, each item in the list is a JSON LCAF. Or in the more “raw form”, each item is a DN to describe/encode a list of character strings. Dino On May 28, 2026, at 1:19 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> wrote: >>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]
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
