Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:07:11 +0000

Sender: [email-masked]
On-Behalf-Of: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Recipient: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:07:03 +0000
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>

I find this more convincing than the previous version.

The "Routing Considerations" section still doesn't make it clear
why non-LISP operators will be happy to propagate routes under the
EID Block prefix. You can say "Why wouldn't they?", but then you
need to explain why some people have been reluctant to propagate
2002::/16, perhaps because of fear that it might become a traffic
magnet.

Regards

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