"can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same output as its
input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" and that
needs to be corrected.
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; lisp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Albert Cabellos; Damien
Saucez; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control overlay's group
address allocation.
Dino
On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David
<david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com> wrote:
I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely clear that
the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that mapping
between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
To: Luigi Iannone
Cc: Black, David; ops-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; lisp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Albert Cabellos; Damien
Saucez; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
G-EID => the EID multicast group G
G-RLOC => the RLOC multicast group G
"inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP multicast
documents.
Dino