Oh that is great. What do others in the WG think? Dino
> On Mar 22, 2022, at 3:18 PM, Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> • An EID registered with the same site-ID (and merge-bit) from > >> different xTRs is merged. If site-IDs differ this is considered a move. > >Correct. But you have to deal with misconfiguration so 2 xTRs at the same > >site advertising a different site-ID doesn't look like a move. So the xTR-ID > >needs to be checked as well. > > Perfect, let me add this to the updated version > > >> • For “discovery” purposes in multihomed groups: An L2 EID > >> registered from one xTR and a specific site-ID, needs to be notified to > >> all xTRs that are using that same site-ID > >You have to keep a list of xTR-IDs for a merged registration over time. And > >the list is cleared when a new xTR-ID is discovered with a different > >site-ID. Right? > > Agree. I’ll also clarify this point in the updated version > > Thanks! > Marc > > From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 11:36 AM > To: Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-09 from the LISP > WG presentation > > > I believe we discussed this last time but, with the new perspective, > > couldn’t we just use the pair <IID, site-ID> to at least get per VLAN > > granularity in some of these decisions. > > Yes, that would work better since the site-ID is in the Map-Register (where > you need the xTR distinction) and the IID is in the EID encoding of the > EID-record where you need the VLAN association. So this is ideal. > > > We get the same benefits: no impact on the bis document, and some extra > > granularity in the choice of DF or more detail when implementing split > > horizon on the xTRs. > > Right. Agree. > > > And just to complete the story. When we use site-IDs this means that: > > > > • An EID registered with the same site-ID (and merge-bit) from > > different xTRs is merged. If site-IDs differ this is considered a move. > > Correct. But you have to deal with misconfiguration so 2 xTRs at the same > site advertising a different site-ID doesn't look like a move. So the xTR-ID > needs to be checked as well. > > > • For “discovery” purposes in multihomed groups: An L2 EID > > registered from one xTR and a specific site-ID, needs to be notified to all > > xTRs that are using that same site-ID > > You have to keep a list of xTR-IDs for a merged registration over time. And > the list is cleared when a new xTR-ID is discovered with a different site-ID. > Right? > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
