[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, lisp at ietf.org
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:34:28 -0400
In-reply-to: <6DA213EB-0F77-470B-BDF9-A49D6AB5D4FB at sandstorm.net>
References: <20090926003820.B87CB6BE572 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6DA213EB-0F77-470B-BDF9-A49D6AB5D4FB at sandstorm.net>

On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

On Sep 25, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
No, not as far as I know. Just the Map-Request encapsulation waschanged.
The proposed text that Dino sent is not consistent with this... Itimplies that the encapsulated format will be used for allcommunication between the xTRs and the mapping system at the top.In the later text, in the description of the UDP ports for the innerheader, it talks about what they will be set to for Map-Replies andMap-Registers.

s/Map-Replies and Map-Registers/Map_Requests, Map-Replies and Map-Registers


Margaret

References:
- Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
  - From: Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
  - From: Margaret Wasserman

Prev by Date: Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
Next by Date: Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
Previous by thread: Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
Next by thread: [lisp] Clarification on issue #16 Map versioning Discussion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.