Thank you Padma > On Jun 22, 2024, at 14:33, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I will captialize. > > Dino > >> On Jun 22, 2024, at 9:24 AM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> HI Dino >> >> Thanks for the updates. From draft-ietf-lisp-te >> >> Otherwise, when the S-bit is set and an >> xTR determines the RLOC is not reachable, it must not use any of >> the remaining entries in the ELP list and drop the packet. >> >> >> >> >> >> Shouldn't this be a "MUST not"? >> Otherwise all my comments have been addressed. >> >> Padma >> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:16 PM Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Here is where i wonder whether strict would have been best to drop the >>> packet and not go to n+1 per the example for SFC where there are mandatory >>> services. >>> >>> I think it might be worthwhile to document this behavior so as there are no >>> surprises. >>> Thoughts? >> >> Will add. Thanks. >> >> Dino >> >> >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
