Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

Hi all I just posted -12 with the changes suggested by Luigi Albert On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi Albert, > > thanks for submitting the updated document. > > I have have a few residual nits listed below. Fixed those we can move to > LC IMO. > > Ciao

Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR

These comments apply to version -09 of the document without any change. -v On Mar 19, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) > wrote: Dear WG, I did a quick review of rfc6833bis-08. Some comments/suggestions 1. Section 5.8. Encapsulated

[lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR

Dear WG, I did a quick review of rfc6833bis-08. Some comments/suggestions 1. Section 5.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format. There is a reference to LH, it is not spelled out anywhere. I assume this means Lisp Header. 2. Section 5.8. On page 27, there is a figure/header format showing the

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Authors : Dino Farinacci

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute > considerations”. > > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection > or you have a better name to suggest. I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) but I would

[lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

Hi All, during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane. The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all of what is normally in a OAM document. The suggested

Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 6:22 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> Dear WG, >> >> I did a quick review of rfc6833bis-08. Some comments/suggestions > > Thanks Victor. See new update enclosed. Let us know if you are good with the > changes and the response below. > >> 1. Section

Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR

Thanks Dino, I want to make sure I understand correctly. A couple of questions: If the EID-prefix exists and there is a policy in the Map-Server to have the requestor drop packets for the matching EID-prefix, then a Drop/Policy-Denied action is