Can you explain what information you are conveying with the RLOCs? I
think we would need a clear use case before changing the spec.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/22/17 2:07 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) wrote:
Dear WG,
As we put some of our specifications to the test in deployments, we have found
the ability to return RLOCs dynamically in an NMR to be compelling in a variety
of deployment scenarios. Particularly in Networks with multiple Internet exit
points.
What are the thoughts of the group on allowing NMRs with a locator count !=0?
One option to indicate that a map-reply is an NMR could be to assign one of the
reserved bits as an NMR flag.
Would like to gauge the inclination of the WG before proposing text/edits.
-v
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
