> On 1 Jun 2022, at 15:46, Luigi Iannone <ggx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > >> On 1 Jun 2022, at 15:29, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Nice sentence, but what does it mean? What action should the >> implementation take to satisfy "MUST be managed"? From Luigi's >> initial response (above), it sounds like the time between changes (TTL >> ?) has to be long enough... Please spell some of this out. >> > > What if we change to: > > Mapping updates, and their corresponding Map Version Number MUST be managed so > that a very old version number will not be confused as a new version number (because of the circular numbering space). > Or may be: Mapping updates, and their corresponding Map Version Number MUST be managed so that a very old version number will not be confused as a new version number (because of the circular numbering space). To this end simple measures can be taken, like Updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in 6833bis) Any preference? > Or you consider it too vague? > > Ciao > > L. > >> Thanks! >> >> Alvaro. > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
