Re: [RRG] Comments to Draft-lewis-lisp-interworking

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> Some comment to the "Lews draft":
>
> - already in the abstract the draft talks about LIPS prefixes which  
> seem to be central for the document. But in the section of  
> "Definition of Terms" there is not definition for the term "LISP  
> prefix."
>
> - EID prefix reachability seems to be different from LISP locator  
> reachability which denotes existing mapping. Is this really the  
> intention that there are two types of reachabilities? Should the  
> mapping be cached in the ETR in order to be in reachable state, or  
> des it suffice that there is in the mapping system a binding?
>
> - step 8 in section 5.2
>
> How does the ITR know that the packet is destined to non-LISP site?  
> The incoming packet was LISP encapsulated. Would that imply that the  
> site is LISP site? Obviously the ITR needs to make a EID->RLOC map  
> query and fail with that to know that there the destination is non  
> LISP.
>
> Section 5.4
>
> First sentence "There are several that …" => "There are several  
> reasons that ..."
>
> Section 5.5
>
> Append => Prepend?
>
> Regards Hannu

Thanks for the comments Hannu. We will make these fixes ASAP. Thanks  
again.

Dino


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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