>>>>> "Dino" == Dino Farinacci <d...@cisco.com> writes:
Dino> We call "LISP tunnels" as "dynamic encapsulating tunnels" Dino> where an implementation must not implement the tunnel as a Dino> logical interface. The implementation cannot scale if it Dino> does this. You get the level of indirection by doing another Dino> lookup in another data structure called the "map-cache". I see no text in draft-ietf-lisp-03 that says that lisp tunnels cannot be logical interfaces and would object strongly to including such an implementation detail in the spec. I see text that says that they must not be statically configured. I also don't see the scaling argument you're making. Perhaps you're trying to say is that you want all traffic considered for lisp encapsulation and do not want to flood the mapping database into the local routing table. That's probably true, but seems quite unrelated to whether something is a logical interface at least with several host routing implementations I'm familiar with. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------