lisp Discussion Archive - Date Index

[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Thread Index] [IETF Mailing List Directory] [lisp List Information]

• Nov 20 2009
• Re: [lisp] Map-Request error, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Map-Request error, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] Map-Request error, Joel M. Halpern
• [lisp] Map-Request error, Noel Chiappa
• Nov 12 2009
• [lisp] if you want to connect to the LISP test network..., David Meyer
• Nov 11 2009
• Re: [lisp] LISP WG changes after Hiroshima, vijay gill
• Nov 09 2009
• Re: [lisp] Minute taker and scribe for meeting, Terry Manderson
• Nov 09 2009
• [lisp] LISP WG changes after Hiroshima, Jari Arkko
• Nov 06 2009
• Re: [lisp] Agenda for LISP?, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Nov 05 2009
• [lisp] Agenda for LISP?, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, Noel Chiappa
• [lisp] Where are the lig sources?, Sam Hartman
• Nov 04 2009
• Re: [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Luigi Iannone
• Nov 03 2009
• [lisp] Minute taker and scribe for meeting, Terry Manderson
• Re: [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] Interest in interop testing Sunday, Sam Hartman
• Oct 27 2009
• Re: [lisp] Comments to LISP+ALT draft, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Comments to LISP+ALT draft, Vince Fuller
• [lisp] Comments to LISP+ALT draft, Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)
• Oct 26 2009
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Luigi Iannone
• Oct 23 2009
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Luigi Iannone
• Oct 21 2009
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] Update on moving LISP, Sam Hartman
• Oct 19 2009
• [lisp] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/wiki/Security01 with significantly more detail, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Who is affected by the RRG LISP conflict Friday morning, Templin, Fred L
• Re: [lisp] Who is affected by the RRG LISP conflict Friday morning, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] Who is affected by the RRG LISP conflict Friday morning, Eduardo Ascenço Reis
• Re: [lisp] Who is affected by the RRG LISP conflict Friday morning, Lixia Zhang
• [lisp] Who is affected by the RRG LISP conflict Friday morning, Sam Hartman
• Oct 14 2009
• Re: [lisp] Requesting time to discuss my proposed security model, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] Second call for Agenda items, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] Requesting time to discuss my proposed security model, Sam Hartman
• Oct 13 2009
• [lisp] Reminder: Upcoming Draft Deadlines, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Oct 12 2009
• [lisp] Please read draft-bagnulo-lisp-threat-01.txt, Sam Hartman
• Oct 09 2009
• [lisp] Comments on draft-saucez-lisp-security-00, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] FW: LISP - Requested sessions have been scheduled for IETF 76, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Oct 06 2009
• [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-ms-04.txt, Internet-Drafts
• [lisp] updated LISP-MS document - draft-ietf-lisp-ms-04.txt, Vince Fuller
• Oct 02 2009
• [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-ms-03.txt, Internet-Drafts
• Sep 30 2009
• [lisp] update to LISP-MS (draft-ietf-lisp-ms-03.txt), Vince Fuller
• [lisp] experimental RFCs, Jari Arkko
• [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt, Internet-Drafts
• [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Internet-Drafts
• Sep 28 2009
• [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt, Dino Farinacci
• Sep 28 2009
• Re: [lisp] Later Monday morning diffs, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] Later Monday morning diffs, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Early Monday morning diffs, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] Early Monday morning diffs, Dino Farinacci
• Sep 27 2009
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Eliot Lear
• [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt --- 09/26/09 Sat Night, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Sep 26 2009
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Eliot Lear
• [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] LISP-NAT - explanation and support?, Robin Whittle
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Noel Chiappa
• Sep 25 2009
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] LISP-NAT - explanation and support?, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Preparing changes for -05, Margaret Wasserman
• Sep 24 2009
• [lisp] Preparing changes for -05, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] #2: Consensus in favor of replacing IPsec with a MAC, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #24: Encapsulated control packets on the LISP data port 4341, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] #24: Encapsulated control packets on the LISP data port 4341, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22..., Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Vince Fuller
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] New Issues: Documents need disclaimers (see Charter), Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Sep 23 2009
• Re: [lisp] The other question, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] The other question, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] The other question, John Zwiebel
• [lisp] The other question, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Terry Manderson
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, John Zwiebel
• Re: [lisp] #23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] #23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Vince Fuller
• Sep 22 2009
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Vince Fuller
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Terry Manderson
• Re: [lisp] #5: protocol version in lisp header, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] LISP-NAT - explanation and support?, Robin Whittle
• [lisp] Business models - PITRs, PETRs and EID-rental, Robin Whittle
• [lisp] proposed fix issue #22 - processing of Encapsulated Map Requests, Vince Fuller
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, John Zwiebel
• Re: [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] To IPsec or not IPsec (Issue #2)?, Brian Weis
• Sep 21 2009
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transition, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Robin Whittle
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] Call for interest in working on security, Sam Hartman
• Sep 20 2009
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Robin Whittle
• Sep 19 2009
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers (PETRs), Robin Whittle
• Sep 18 2009
• [lisp] A number of issues I'm not bringing up, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] Jumpstarting discussion on draft-ietf-lisp-05, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning/data plane consensus call, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Brian E Carpenter
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Margaret Wasserman
• Sep 17 2009
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] #22: rough support for fixing MS requires XTRs to consume packets not address to them, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] IANA allocations, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] IANA allocations, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning/data plane consensus call, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] #16: map versioning/data plane consensus call, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Jesper Skriver
• [lisp] #5: LISP protocol version is alive and kicking, Sam Hartman
• Sep 16 2009
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, John Zwiebel
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt, Internet-Drafts
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Florin Coras
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Loránd Jakab
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Loránd Jakab
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #9, #10, #11: UDP checksum consensus call, Dino Farinacci
• Sep 15 2009
• [lisp] #9, #10, #11: UDP checksum consensus call, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, John Zwiebel
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1MTU Handling, Templin, Fred L
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] LISP Over Lossy Links, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Loránd Jakab
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Jari Arkko
• [lisp] #19: not including the M bit, Sam Hartman
• Sep 14 2009
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTUHandling, Templin, Fred L
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #20 consensus call: SMR bit in control plane only, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] #20: supporting SMR bit only in control plane, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, John Zwiebel
• Sep 13 2009
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Luigi Iannone
• Sep 12 2009
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• Sep 11 2009
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, John Zwiebel
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Templin, Fred L
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, David Meyer
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Marshall Eubanks
• [lisp] I am not posting the -04 document today, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] New Issue: UDP-TUNNELS inconsistent with 5.4.1 MTU Handling, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] Any objections for posting draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt?, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #2: IPsec or just IPsec headers; sha-1 size, Laganier, Julien
• [lisp] Consensus Call: 64-bit nonce and randomness of nonce, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Changes proposed in 04 that have not yet demonstrated WG consensus, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Changes proposed in 04 that have not yet demonstrated WG consensus, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #2: IPsec or just IPsec headers; sha-1 size, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] #2: IPsec or just IPsec headers; sha-1 size, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] Thursday updated diff file for the lisp-04 proposed changes, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Marshall Eubanks
• Sep 10 2009
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Marshall Eubanks
• Re: [lisp] [#16]: Desire to expand data plane for map versioning or handle in the control plane, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] [#5] LISP protocol version, Damien Saucez
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] text suggestion for random nonces, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Christopher Morrow
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Randomness Requirements for Nonce, Christopher Morrow
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] Randomness Requirements for Nonce, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] Wednesday updated diff file for the lisp-04 proposed changes, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Christopher Morrow
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Christopher Morrow
• Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] We have converged on 64 bits!, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Sep 09 2009
• Re: [lisp] Wednesday updated diff file for the lisp-04 proposed changes, Marshall Eubanks
• [lisp] Wednesday updated diff file for the lisp-04 proposed changes, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] We have converged on 64 bits!, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Packet format change mechanism [Was: #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear], Sam Hartman
• [lisp] Packet format change mechanism [Was: #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear], Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] 32-bit nonce in map request insufficient, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• [lisp] Tuesday updated diff file for the lisp-04 proposed changes, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] Updated text to data gleaning, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Dino Farinacci
• Sep 08 2009
• [lisp] Lisp WG concerns, Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #7: LISP ETRs ignoring checksum value in LISP UDP outer header on decapsulation, Jari Arkko
• [lisp] Consensus call on LISP 04 header, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Jari Arkko
• [lisp] Security through NATs (Was: Re: #7: LISP ETRs ignoring checksum value in LISP UDP outer header on decapsulation), Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] [#16]: Desire to expand data plane for map versioning or handle in the control plane, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] Status of Security work, Luigi Iannone
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, Eliot Lear
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] [#3] lisp-ms needs security between ITR and map resolver, Jari Arkko
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] #22: An ETR MUST consume UDP port 4342 packets not addressed to it, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] #21: Section 5.1 behavior, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, Margaret Wasserman
• Re: [lisp] xTR to xTR via nat64, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Changes that have demonstrated sufficient consensus, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] Changes proposed in 04 that have not yet demonstrated WG consensus, Dino Farinacci
• Sep 07 2009
• Re: [lisp] #18: record count >1 for map request, Joel M. Halpern
• [lisp] Changes that have demonstrated sufficient consensus, Sam Hartman
• Re: [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Dino Farinacci
• [lisp] Changes proposed in 04 that have not yet demonstrated WG consensus, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] Confirming Consensus on RLOC probing, Sam Hartman
• [lisp] #20: SMR bit only in control plane, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, lisp issue tracker
• Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear, lisp issue tracker
• [lisp] #19: mobility bit in map reply, lisp issue tracker
• [lisp] Apologies in advance for the form of some issues I'm opening, Sam Hartman