Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2019-01-10 Thread Brian E Carpenter
rsion is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De : mohamed.boucad...@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com] >> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57 >

Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-20 Thread Brian E Carpenter
;> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >>>>> procedures in [RFC8126]. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >>>

Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-20 Thread Brian E Carpenter
n the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >> Action [RFC8113]. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -Message d'origine- >>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00 >

Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

2018-12-18 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP specs > to PS. > > The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis is > that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that needed > to move to PS

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt

2013-02-27 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Sender: lisp-boun...@ietf.org On-Behalf-Of: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt Message-Id: 512cc187.1020...@gmail.com Recipient: buxt...@cintas.com ---BeginMessage--- I find this more convincing than the previous version. The Routing

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt

2013-02-26 Thread Brian E Carpenter
I find this more convincing than the previous version. The Routing Considerations section still doesn't make it clear why non-LISP operators will be happy to propagate routes under the EID Block prefix. You can say Why wouldn't they?, but then you need to explain why some people have been

Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt back in workgroup

2013-01-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi, On 09/01/2013 12:04, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi, On 8 Jan. 2013, at 11:34 , SM s...@resistor.net wrote: ... I suggest dropping the idea of calling it a very large-scale experiment. The unstated problem is about politics. I suggest taking a look at draft-lear-lisp-nerd-09. It

Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt back in workgroup

2013-01-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/01/2013 10:29, Luigi Iannone wrote: On 8 Jan. 2013, at 09:23 , Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote: - description on how to use this prefix Can be improved… I agree. - short-term routing strategy / impact on routing table - long-term routing strategy / impact on routing table

Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

2012-11-16 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Joel, On 16/11/2012 16:00, Joel M. Halpern wrote: ... With regard to interworking and deployment, there are a number of documents that deal with that. They discuss what the currently understood deployment incentives are, and what paths are currently seen. (As Noel noted, this is an