Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently in the charter but not finished

On 14/3/23 10:46, Luigi Iannone wrote: LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document Here we have the problem of  handovers between RTRs. Some time ago I proposed a possible solution but I believe we need to think a little more to find a more optimal solution. Albert López

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon

overlay is strictly brokered. If the above computes, welcome any suggestion that prevents reading the draft differently. --szb Cell: +972.53.2470068 WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 On Feb 8, 2021, at 12:05, Albert López wrote:  Hi Sharon, Thanks for your clarifications. I have some questions

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon

Hi Sharon, Thanks for your clarifications. I have some questions inline. On 5/2/21 13:31, Sharon wrote: Thank you Albert. These are very good comments. See inline: --szb Cell: +972.53.2470068 WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 On Feb 5, 2021, at 12:26, Albert López wrote:  Hi all, After reading

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon

a new H3.9 section? I think that more references need to be added to the document like the DIAMETER RFC. I hope these comments could help to improve the document. Best regards Albert López On 3/2/21 16:25, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, The authors of draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon submi

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub

I agree it is ready. Albert L. On 13/1/21 8:19, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, The authors of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub submitted a new version addressing the issues raised during SECDIR review. The document seems mature and stable and authors are asking for formal WG Last Call. This email

Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

something more than just +1. For example, what do you see this as being useful for? Yours, Joel On 9/28/2020 1:29 AM, Albert López wrote: +1 Albert L. On 27/9/20 9:36, Dino Farinacci wrote: I did not see any objections for this request but I didn’t see any specific support either. Can we get some

Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

+1 Albert L. On 27/9/20 9:36, Dino Farinacci wrote: I did not see any objections for this request but I didn’t see any specific support either. Can we get some replies if you support this. Otherwise, it will continue to reside for more than 4 years as an individual submission. Thanks in

[lisp] LISP NAT Traversal [Was: Virtual meeting]

tify associated xTRs to change the RTR they are using? * If a NATed device wants to manage their map request and map replies, which ITR RLOCS should use to fill the Map Request? Best regards Albert López ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org h

Re: [lisp] Current IP addresses of LispBeta network servers?

' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics wrote: Hi Albert, the following servers have no IPv6 addresses listed: CISCO-SJC-MR-MS-1 EQX-ASH-MR-MS INTOUCH-MR-MS-1 INTOUCH-PXTR-1 SG-NUS-MR-MS Do they lack IPv6 connectivity? Best regards Renne Am 25.07.2018 um 11:44 schrieb Albert López: Hi Renne, If you

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf

+1 On 19/7/18 23:35, Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) wrote: I also support handing this document to the AD *From: *lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone *Date: *Friday, July 6, 2018 at 3:06 AM *To: *"lisp@ietf.org list" *Cc: *"lisp-cha...@ietf.org" *Subject: *[lisp] WG Last Call for

Re: [lisp] The LISP WG has placed draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

+1 Albert L On 04/04/18 03:14, IETF Secretariat wrote: The LISP WG has placed draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Joel Halpern) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub/ Comment: As

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03

+1 Albert L. On 05/04/18 16:08, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, During our last meeting, the authors of the LISP GPE document  [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03] asked for Last Call. The room showed consensus and no objections were raised. This email starts the usual two

Re: [lisp] Adoption call: draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt

info/lisp ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp -- Albert López CCABA System Administrator Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Telf: 93 4017182 ___ lisp mailing

Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

+1 I also support extending RFC 6830bis as suggested. We have an initial implementation of LISP-GPE in OOR and we think this extension could be really useful. Albert López El 30/11/17 a les 07:32, Florin Coras ha escrit: +1 The LISP implementation in FD.io <http://FD.io> VPP mak

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

    2- Data Map Notify -> int dst IP:  From RTR address to ETR local locator / / Best regards Albert López 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.

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

use 2 minutes as the threshold. So the 3 minute recommendation for expiring a Map Register seems suitable here. Hope this clarifies it. Best, Vina On 11/6/17, 1:01 AM, "lisp on behalf of Albert López" <lisp-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of alo...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: In th

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

ages. Dino On Nov 3, 2017, at 1:35 AM, Albert López <alo...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: 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

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

e Map-Server. At this point the RTR can change the state of the associated map-cache entry to verified for the duration of the Map-Register TTL" Thank you in advance. Albert López ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailma

Re: [lisp] Current state of anycast IP-addresses in the LISP Beta Network?

Dear Renne, LISP Beta Network is not using anycast addresses for MS/MR or PxTRs. On the other hand, not all the nodes of Beta Network have IPv6 connectivity. You can find the current status of these nodes here . Best regards Albert El 12/10/17 a

[lisp] Locator ordering

Dear all, We have seen that, according to RFC 6830, the locators appearing in a Map Reply must be sorted in order of ascending IP address where an IPv4 locator address is considered numerically 'less than' an IPv6 locator address. How should the locators be sorted if we also have LCAF