Subject: Re: [lisp] Capabilities Type LCAF - a proposal

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:41:43 -0500 (EST)

> From: Damien Saucez <[email-masked]>

    > I would have a question, if there is capability, it means that there is
    > a possibility to meet no capability so in this case what is replied?
    > ...
    > If 0 locators then it is a negative reply but conceptually this is not
    > a negative reply. If no answer, then the requester will keep continuing
    > sending requests.

Good points.

In general, I don't think we should keep tweaking Map-Request and Map-Reply
messages 'because they are there'. If we need to extend semantics, let's do
it right.

    > If a new message, what kind of message?

The has been some discussion about adding a new message-type to fill a
variety of roles which involve transferring information around (e.g.
dynamically loading configuration information such as default PxTRs into
small xTRs, a la DHCP, instead of having to manuall configure them).

This would seem to naturally fall into that general classification?

	Noel

---

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:19:55 +0100

> messages 'because they are there'. If we need to extend semantics, let's do

Keep tweaking existing things to support all sort of new idea only
lead to complexity, and more problem somewhere down the road.

But I do see the need for that Dino describe.

> This would seem to naturally fall into that general classification?

I would support doing this as a new message in the form of a framework
to support existing idea, new idea and future needs. Sort of a version
2 extension. You don't need it, but if you support it an use it you
get access to a whole range of cool and fancy extension of LISP :-)

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]