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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:38:20 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

    > No, that's not what I was asking...

Ah, sorry, my turn to be confused... :-)

    > Vince's proposal indicated that we would change the encapsulation of
    > the Map-Request ...
    > .. didn't say anything about encapsulating the Map-Register and
    > Map-Reply messages in the new "Encapsulated Control Message" format.
    > ... they are just sent as normal UDP/IP packets, and I don't think we
    > agreed to change that.

That is my understanding.

    > Did I miss something?

No, not as far as I know. Just the Map-Request encapsulation was changed.

	Noel

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:32:55 -0400

> No, not as far as I know. Just the Map-Request encapsulation was  

The proposed text that Dino sent is not consistent with this...  It  
implies that the encapsulated format will be used for all  
communication between the xTRs and the mapping system at the top.  In  
the later text, in the description of the UDP ports for the inner  
header, it talks about what they will be set to for Map-Replies and  
Map-Registers.

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:34:28 -0400

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

> communication between the xTRs and the mapping system at the top.   
> In the later text, in the description of the UDP ports for the inner  

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

Margaret