> On 25 May 2023, at 20:34, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>
>
Now, let’s take one step back: the real question seems to be how to signal
in the mapping system that an RLOC belongs to a RTR?
>>>
>>> You could do it with a distinguished-name AFI that is encoded with the RLOC
>>> address.
>>
>> Excellent. So we have another possibility beside LCAF.
>
> Well to be specific, if you put a dist-name with the RLOC it is encoded as an
> AFI-list LCAF. But I know what you mean. You are proposing/considering a new
> LCAF type that identifies an RTR.
>
This could be one solution. But we do not need to do it if there is no
interest.
For this document the text suggested by Joel clarifies the peculiar usage of
the priority field.
I would just amend the text as follows:
"this describes a shortcut we took, not compliant with [RFC9300] and [RFC9301],
which works among consenting parties when no one else is using the particular
values in any other way, but we do not recommended it for arbitrary
deployments.”
Ciao
L.
> Dino
>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
