F28-LI: No
Rationale
In the selected LISP composition, the ITR selects a destination RLOC from the EID mapping and encapsulates the endpoint packet. RLOC priorities, weights and the selected load-sharing witness concern tunnel-router decisions; they do not give the sending application endpoint an interface to select the forwarding intermediaries.
Assessment method
Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment
Source context
Babel route selection, LISP RLOC selection and RPL source routing
Outstanding qualification
The positive concurrent-path witness in F09 is an ITR policy, not endpoint path control. End hosts remain ordinary inner-IPv4 endpoints in this column. No co-located endpoint xTR, explicit locator path extension or endpoint-to-ITR path-selection API is selected. LISP traffic engineering remains a capability of the infrastructure, without implying F28 for this composition.
Public sources
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9300.html#section-9
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9300.html#section-4.2
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round513.html
- round513-sources.json