Hi Suresh, Regarding your Discuss:
> * Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement > is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is incorrect and needs to > be fixed. > > For L3 service, Tenant Systems should expect the IPv4 TTL (Time to > Live) or IPv6 Hop Limit in the packets they send to be decremented by > at least 1. > > e.g. Consider two IPv6 end systems that are connected using an L3 > service. If one of them is the router and another is a host on the same > network a significant part of the Neighbor Discovery functions will stop > working if the hop limit is decremented (from 255 to 254). In that example, the two IPV6 end systems need to be connected by a virtual link that provides L2 service, e.g. to make ND and ARP work. Do you have suggestions for text to add (and where to add it) that would make this clearer? > * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion > concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG > discussed this? Well, IMHO, observing the intarea WG's level of engagement here, I don't think more "cooks" are needed on this topic . It'd be reasonable to add a sentence on this topic pointing to the intarea tunnels draft. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:09 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; Matthew Bocci; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: (with DISCUSS > and > COMMENT) > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement > is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is incorrect and needs to > be fixed. > > For L3 service, Tenant Systems should expect the IPv4 TTL (Time to > Live) or IPv6 Hop Limit in the packets they send to be decremented by > at least 1. > > e.g. Consider two IPv6 end systems that are connected using an L3 > service. If one of them is the router and another is a host on the same > network a significant part of the Neighbor Discovery functions will stop > working if the hop limit is decremented (from 255 to 254). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion > concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG > discussed this? > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
