Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

Hi all, I have some more questions regarding this draft. * 3.1.  LISP NAT Traversal Overview /   The ETR encapsulates the Map-Register message in a LISP ECM header destined// //   to the RTR's RLOC.  The RTR strips the LISP ECM header, re-originates// //   the Map-Register message, and sends

Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

Hi Vina, It make sense for me. Thank you very much. Albert El 08/11/17 a les 21:33, Vina Ermagan (vermagan) ha escrit: Hi Albert, ³Map Register TTL² in the referenced paragraph is indeed the TTL for which a Map Register stays valid in a Map Server. Suggested time in the RFC for periodic

Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

In that case, I think that It would be better if the validation time / expiration time of the locator associated with the ECM-ed Map Register & ECM-ed Map Notify is related with the periodic time of sending ECM-ed Map Registers. Usually a hole in the nat box is less than two minutes so we send

Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

The TTL in the Map-Register is the TTL returned in Map-Replies. So it is the expiry time for a map-cache entry. Note it is the “Record TTL” in the EID-record which both appear in Map-Register and Map-Reply messages. Dino > On Nov 3, 2017, at 1:35 AM, Albert López wrote: >

[lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

Dear all, In section 5.3 of the draft draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal which describe the RTR processing, it says that when the RTR receive and ECM-ed Map Notify, once it is validated, it changes the state of the associated map-cache entry to verified for the duration of the Map Register