[rrg] [lisp] [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as towhether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

[Dino Farinacci]

>> if you are going to claim liveness through a protocol, you have to  
>> send
>> control packets all the time from M ITRs to N ETRs.
>
> I find this terminology somewhat non-intuitive, and wonder if it's  
> too late
> to change it. To me, "liveness" would imply as to whether something  
> is live
> or dead, i.e. up or down. (Such state detection can obviously be  
> performed on
> ITR I1's behalf by I2, and the result communicated locally from I2  
> to I1.)

I think its only documented in the Dave/Darrel draft. But they use the  
term "path liveness" so I think that is a more appropriate term.

> The issue of whether packets from ITR Im can reach ETR En (which is  
> where you
> run into the need for M*N) I would describe as "reachability". (So  
> if there's
> a routing problem, or an access control setting, that prevents I1 from
> getting to E7 even through I1 can get to E8 and I2 can get to E7,  
> that would
> be a reachability problem on the {I1, E7} pairing.) I seem to recall  
> this
> term being used in at least one routing protocol, although I can't  
> now recall
> which one.

Right, Dave/Darrel referred to it as "reachable paths", "testing  
reachability", "is there path liveness". Those sorts of terms.

Dino

>
>
>        Noel
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg