Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>]

On Sep 25, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > There is other wording that also implies that the Map- Register and
> > Map-Reply will be encapsulated, and I want to confirm that they  
> > won't.
>
> They will be 'encapsulated' (as in, wrapped inside another IP/UDP/LISP
> header), but they will not have these authentication fields (AFAIK).  
> Was
> that what you were asking?

No, that's not what I was asking...

Vince's proposal indicated that we would change the encapsulation of  
the Map-Request (which was encapsulated in a LISP Data packet in the  
-04 draft) to use an outer header with port 4342 (instead of 4241) and  
a LISP Control message (instead of the LISP Data header) with a type  
of "Encapsulated Control Packet".

Vince's proposal didn't say anything about encapsulating the Map- 
Register and Map-Reply messages in the new "Encapsulated Control  
Message" format.  The Map-Register and Map-Reply are not encapsulated  
in the -04 draft, they are just sent as normal UDP/IP packets, and I  
don't think we agreed to change that.

Did I miss something?

Margaret