Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

You have to judge that. We do have references that point to ISIS and OSPF. 

Dino

> On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:14 AM, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On 18 Apr 2024, at 16:19, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> LISP geo-location decided to use the encoding format consistent and coordinated with the routing protocols. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Is this clearly state in the document?
>> 
>> L.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 11:59 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello Dino and Alberto 
>>> 
>>> The  Yang Doctor review had comments on Yang -20 draft regarding the geoloc. 
>>> For reference comment from Joe Clark 
>>> As to the two questions asked here, I can see some benefit of breaking out the IANA parts of address-types into a module that they maintain.  But in its current form, I don't know that it makes sense to have them maintain it.  As for geoloc, I do see some overlap, but I am not a LISP expert at all, so I cannot comment as to whether bringing that whole module in makes sense or would even work with LISP implementations.  That is, it seems LISP lat and long are expressed in degrees° minutes'seconds" whereas geoloc does this as a decimal64 from a reference frame.  I do feel that whatever direction is taken, text explaining why geoloc is not used is useful.
>>> 
>>> Per Med's comment on groupings - 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/
>>> 
>>> Consolidating these comments in a single thread here for resolution and discussion on the list before the refresh,
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Padma and Luigi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>