Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites
RFC 6832
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Hoovering up my Comments
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
0. Thanks for addressing my issue regarding private addresses in section 7.2 1. Thanks for adding Figure 1. Section 7.2 (discussing private addresses) might benefit from an extension to Figure 1 that demonstrates where the NAT function fits. 2. Cleared. 3. Cleared. 4. Cleared.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- Its not clear to me that the mapping system can reliably know that all non-LISP IP addresses are in fact not EIDs. But I'm willing to suspend disbelief for the experiment:-)
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
Default Free Zone (DFZ) should have a reference, if only a forward ref to section 2 when you first use it in section 1 ==== Asymmetry is a problem with certain types of application, NTP for example. It would be useful if there was some discussion on the relative degree of asymmetry imposed by these LISP solutions vs the degree of asymmetry in the existing Internet, and a note made about the impact of asymmetry on applications
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection