Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 20 November 2013 19:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2203F1AE512 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:12:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBkYdT21y8vD for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A9B1AE50F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 7C19918C0E7; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:42:33 -0500 (EST)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131120184233.7C19918C0E7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:42:33 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:12:02 -0000
> From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> > There is no need for a new message. That would complicate matters and > create more combinations to deal with when receiving responses. Huh? Less complication than a(nother) wart on Map-Request/Map-Replies? I fail to see why a new (clean) packet-type would be any extra complexity. (My take is that it's only illusory that re-using Map-Request/Map-Replies would be less complexity.) Sure, if the was the _only_ thing we were going to add, maybe we could tack it onto the side of Map-Request/Map-Replies - but when you take into account that we have a bunch of other things we'd like to do... Noel
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Sander Steffann
- [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Damien Saucez
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal Roger Jørgensen