> > > From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > That seems to assume that a failure will produce a map change. I expect > > a failure to produce a change in the routing tables, but why should a > > (temporary) failure produce any change in the map? > > Because it's a lot less overhead to the system (overall) to change a mapping > entry, and then change it back when the failure has been remedied? > > Of couse, if the failure affects *lots* of entries, then it's cheaper overall > to have the routing deal with it. However, it all depends on the exact nature > of the failure (which wasn't specified). > > Unfortunately, we don't have any way (or tools) that would allow us to decide > whether it made more sense to handle something in one subsystem (mapping) or > another (path-selection).
How about having the authoritative ETR to update the status of the EID->RLOC mapping in the mapping system automatically according to the connectivity between the ETR and the site network, while having the routing system to determine the reachability of the ETR? Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
