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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:42:33 -0500 (EST)

> From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>

    > 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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:16:48 -0800

> Huh? Less complication than a(nother) wart on Map-Request/Map-Replies? I fail

There is no wart because consensus appears that we should not do Capability negotiation.

> that we have a bunch of other things we'd like to do...

That is entirely different. So what are you thinking we need to add that requires another message type?

Dino

> 
> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp