Hi David, On 09/15/2016 09:26 AM, Black, David wrote: > 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?
I do have a suggestion OLD: For L3 service, VNs transport IP datagrams, and a Tenant System is provided with a service that only supports IP traffic. NEW: For L3 service, VNs are routed networks that transport IP datagrams, and a Tenant System is provided with a service that only supports IP traffic. > >> * 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. :-). Agree with you on the "too many cooks" point. Alia mentioned there is a follow up draft in nvo3 that discusses the issues. So I am fine even without adding a reference to the tunnels draft. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
