> On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, 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. > Excellent progress thanks. So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer multicast groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the underlay provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay. Did I get it right? L. > 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