Got it. Agree. Dino > On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > "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