Subject: Re: [lisp] Multiple ITR-RLOC fields in the Map-Request packet

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:39:29 -0400 (EDT)

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

    > Here is the proposed Map-Request packet format change:

If we are going to change the Map-Request packet format in an incompatible
way, I think it's very important that we ask 'are there any other changes
we want to make at the same time'.

We have a network that some people are starting to actually use now, and the
ability to make incompatible packet format changes in going to rapidly
disappear. So, it's important that we get the maximum bang for our buck on
these flag days.

I can think of one off the top of my head, which is that I think we _have_ to
add an 'RLOC length' field to the RLOC entries. The reasoning is exactly the
same as for the 'key length' field in the Map-Register packet, i.e. to allow
'unmodified' nodes to skip 'unrecognized' entries when new type of entries
are deployed in the future. (Some AFIs are not fixed length, so a table of
entries of the form {AFI, AFI_length} entries will not fix the problem.}

Does anyone else have any changes (however inchoate) they are thinking of as
being needed in the future in terms of changes to the Map-Request packet
format? If so, please 'bring out your dead' now.

	Noel