Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type

On 13 Nov 2014, at 15:16, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Shouldn't we have some way to allow option for encapsulation? Each encap
> 
> Not sure what you mean exactly Damien.
> 
> If you want some general option negotiation, remember the working group was not thrilled about capability negotiation in the mapping database?
> 

My point was that if we permit to specify different encapsulation techniques,
we have also to give the room to specify parameters associated to the
encapsulation scheme (e.g., a port number, a cookie, )

Damien Saucez 

> Dino
> 
>> system has a set of parameters that should be possible to add here. 
>> 
>> Damien Saucez 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 13 Nov 2014, at 10:45, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've been having discussions with various people and there is a rough concensus that if the LISP mapping system can aid in helping encapsulators know what encapsulation formats a decapsulator supports, we will get better interoperability in the face of the myriad of overlay data-planes that are being proposed in the IETF.
>>> 
>>> Here is the section that was added to the LCAF draft:
>>> 
>>> <PastedGraphic-10.png>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Proposed -07 and html diff also enclosed.
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>> <draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt>
>>> <rfcdiff-lisp-lcaf-06-to-07.html>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp