<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic [Lisp] Map Replay overlapping EID-Prefix. RFC 6830 in Software-Defined Access (SD-Access)</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/lisp-map-replay-overlapping-eid-prefix-rfc-6830/m-p/3957126#M353</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;sdaHello guys.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm reading the RFC 6830 about the Lisp protocol.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a doubt about the Map replay about a EID overlapping prefix.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The RFC (Section&amp;nbsp;6.1.5.) said:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When an ETR is configured with overlapping EID-Prefixes, a&lt;BR /&gt;Map-Request with an EID that best matches any EID-Prefix MUST be&lt;BR /&gt;returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, if an ETR had&lt;BR /&gt;database mapping entries for EID-Prefixes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;10.0.0.0/8&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.0.0/16&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.1.0/24&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.2.0/24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A Map-Request for EID 10.1.1.1 would cause a Map-Reply with a record&lt;BR /&gt;count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-Prefix of&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.1.0/24.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would cause a Map-Reply with a record&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID-Prefixes&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To be honest, I cannot understand why a 10.1.5.5 request should receive 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.1.2.0/24.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The address not fall in these two address.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks a lot and have a nice day.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Americo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:27:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Americo Massotti</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-11-12T10:27:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>[Lisp] Map Replay overlapping EID-Prefix. RFC 6830</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/lisp-map-replay-overlapping-eid-prefix-rfc-6830/m-p/3957126#M353</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;sdaHello guys.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm reading the RFC 6830 about the Lisp protocol.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a doubt about the Map replay about a EID overlapping prefix.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The RFC (Section&amp;nbsp;6.1.5.) said:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When an ETR is configured with overlapping EID-Prefixes, a&lt;BR /&gt;Map-Request with an EID that best matches any EID-Prefix MUST be&lt;BR /&gt;returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, if an ETR had&lt;BR /&gt;database mapping entries for EID-Prefixes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;10.0.0.0/8&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.0.0/16&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.1.0/24&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.2.0/24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A Map-Request for EID 10.1.1.1 would cause a Map-Reply with a record&lt;BR /&gt;count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-Prefix of&lt;BR /&gt;10.1.1.0/24.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would cause a Map-Reply with a record&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID-Prefixes&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To be honest, I cannot understand why a 10.1.5.5 request should receive 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.1.2.0/24.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The address not fall in these two address.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks a lot and have a nice day.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Americo&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:27:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/lisp-map-replay-overlapping-eid-prefix-rfc-6830/m-p/3957126#M353</guid>
      <dc:creator>Americo Massotti</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-12T10:27:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

