Indeed ... a tunnel (GRE, IPSec, etc...) is an interface. How is this different from any other interface from an OSPF point of view If mtu is configured on such interface (and in most cases it should be) that value should be used in OSPF not 0.
Either way it has zero reassemblage to the "OSPF virtual link" hence it seems this is a clear overinterpretation of the RFC. I don't think either -bis is needed, nor errata. Thx, R. On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:59 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree - though I don’t think this is a case of underspecification. OSPF > virtual links should not be confused with OSPF adjacencies over tunnels and > there shouldn’t be any need for the added text. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Sep 20, 2023, at 3:42 PM, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Without commenting on the other aspects, > > > >> On Sep 20, 2023, at 3:34 PM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 3. the MTU "largest datagram" needs to be errate'd to something more > precise on top. > > > > Generally, errata are not the right way to fix “this is underspecified” > kinds of problems. The right way is to do a bis or an update. See also > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ > > > > —John > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
