Opened 9 years ago

Last modified 9 years ago

#30 new editorial

Editorial Issues Section 3 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt raised by Dimitri Papadimitriou in his review

Reported by: luigi@… Owned by:
Priority: trivial Component: draft-ietf-lisp
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Section 3. The definition of Provider Independent (PI) Addresses
states what a PI is not instead of defining what a PI is. Also the
document refers to EID prefixes and EID “blocks” what is a “block” and
a “sub-block”?

Section 3. Definition of PA “LISP uses only topologically-assigned and aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this demonstrably non-scalable practice”. Provide a reference of such demonstration.

Section 3. ITR/ETR are described as routers while they are actually
functions. Describe them as functions instead of “routers”.

Section 3. Definition of RLOC seems to be limited to ETR. Thus how ITR
set the Source RLOC ? Section 7 (third bullet) makes this assignment
even less understandable (the well-defined concept of VRF suddenly
appears).

Section 3. The most important definition “EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup”
is missing. In particular, how a ITR knows that the “incoming”
destination address is part of an EID prefix ? More generally which
event or condition triggers such lookup ?

Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by luigi@…

  • Priority changed from minor to trivial
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.