Trimmed...
I agree with Dino here. There has never been a requirement that the
LISP data plane work with anything other than the LISP control plane.
Strictly speaking, it is not even a requirement that the LISP control
plane be capable of supporting anything other than the LISP data plane.
However, we have found that to be useful, and so are going a short way
down that path (there are still assumptions abou tthe data plane
behavior that are needed for control plane robustness, which is fine.)
Yours,
Joel
On 12/27/17 11:18 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
...
Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing’
I disagree with you guys. Who do you think punts packets when there is a
map-cache miss? The data-plane. Note there are many users of the control-plane,
an SDN controller, many data-planes, and lig/rig. How they each use the
control-plane is documented in their own documents.
And please do not suggest that lig/rig usage of the control plane move to
6833bis.
As an example, if we keep the 'Routing Locator Hashing' text as it is then it
only works with Map-Reply messages:
"When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message that is
stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR”
The point is to allow LISP data-plane to work with any control-plane.
No that has never been a requirement. We have stated (in the charter) that we
can use any data-plane “with the LISP control-plane”. We have never discussed
and it was never a requirement to do the converse.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
