Hi, David and Alia, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Black, David <[email protected]> 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? > > > * 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 > Thanks to both of you for helping me understand this better. Spencer
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
