"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@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM > To: Black, David > Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; Albert Cabellos; Damien > Saucez; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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.black@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM > >> To: Luigi Iannone > >> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; Albert Cabellos; Damien > >> Saucez; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> 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