You have to judge that. We do have references that point to ISIS and OSPF.
Dino > On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:14 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > > >>> On 18 Apr 2024, at 16:19, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> LISP geo-location decided to use the encoding format consistent and >>> coordinated with the routing protocols. >>> >> >> Is this clearly state in the document? >> >> L. >> >> Dino >> >>>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 11:59 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Hello Dino and Alberto >>> >>> The Yang Doctor review had comments on Yang -20 draft regarding the >>> geoloc. >>> For reference comment from Joe Clark >>> As to the two questions asked here, I can see some benefit of breaking out >>> the IANA parts of address-types into a module that they maintain. But in >>> its current form, I don't know that it makes sense to have them maintain >>> it. As for geoloc, I do see some overlap, but I am not a LISP expert at >>> all, so I cannot comment as to whether bringing that whole module in makes >>> sense or would even work with LISP implementations. That is, it seems LISP >>> lat and long are expressed in degrees° minutes'seconds" whereas geoloc does >>> this as a decimal64 from a reference frame. I do feel that whatever >>> direction is taken, text explaining why geoloc is not used is useful. >>> >>> Per Med's comment on groupings - >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/ >>> >>> Consolidating these comments in a single thread here for resolution and >>> discussion on the list before the refresh, >>> >>> Thanks >>> Padma and Luigi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
