Happy New Year All, Thanks for the comments on draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity/> during IETF 115, London as well as the offline discussions with the reviewers afterwards. Here is the follow-up of that discussion to update on the mailing list as well to solicit any further comments (apologies for the delay in the update due to holidays and availability of the authors),
1. (WG) Overall WG showed interest in the draft as it addresses/provides the capability of the dynamic pxTR updates or dynamic external connectivity of LISP site. (Authors): Really appreciate the interest, would like to work with WG to take it further. 1. (Dino): Elaborate on the update mechanisms/message types ( legacy LISP or pub-sub preferred??). (Authors): A shorter TTL would be a simple measure to allow update in non pub-sub (Standard/Legacy LISP) mode. With pub-sub, N-bit would be set in a Map-Request, then Map-Notify messages would be sent to subscribed ITRs as per the PubSub specification. With pub-sub, later option could be preferred as it would be faster. 1. (Padma): Elaborate of how pETR map-reply would be installed/used at ITR (so that no forwarding inefficiencies to send every packet to pxTR) (Authors): ITR would encapsulate the packets to the pETRs for only non-EIDs destinations (for both “EIDs not registered with the Mapping System, or simply are not known" as mentioned in the draft) since more specific entries would already be present for known overlay subnets/EID-block-range at ITR to generate map-request. To decide on encapsulate to pETRs, one or more of the following map-cache entries could be installed/used at ITRs, a) “Hole prefix” entries as part of “pETR Resolution” mentioned in this draft for the destination prefix map-requests. b) Catch-all or 0/0 entries as part of “pETR Request” for the registered "Distinguished Name EID-Prefix” on the boot up or initialization. Please let us know if any additional comments/questions or if we missed anything. From the discussions so far, authors and reviewers are in sync, we (authors) would publish a new draft with all the comments addressed. Thanks, Prakash
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
