Erik, thanks for your review. Greg, thanks for addressing Erik’s comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Dec 17, 2019, at 6:17 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Erik, > thank you for your reviews and for sharing thoughts on the selection of the > destination IPv6 address. Following recommendations from Adam, I've updated > the document to use the proper representation of IPv6 addresses and refer to > them as "IPv4-mapped IPv4 loopback addresses". These updates are in the > attached diff.. Adam also noted that RFC 8504 doesn't have a similar wording > regarding the handling of packets addressed to an address from 127/8 network > as RFC 1812 (of course, referring to IPv4-mapped 127/8 addresses): > A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any > packet that has a destination address on network 127. A router > MAY have a switch that allows the network manager to disable these > checks. If such a switch is provided, it MUST default to > performing the checks. > I'd note, that the egress BFD system is expected to accept a BFD packet with > the destination IP address from the specified range without being provisioned > for the specific address from that range. Perhaps that makes the use of this > range possible even though its special handling is not explicitly documented. > > Best regards, > Greg > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 9:19 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org > <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: > Reviewer: Erik Kline > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-?? > Reviewer: Erik Kline > Review Date: 2019-12-16 > IETF LC End Date: None > IESG Telechat date: 2019-12-19 > > Summary: > > -09 addresses my concerns from -07. Thank you for this. > > The one "nit" is that it seems to have introduced a recommendation to use > ::ffff:7f00:0/104 as an IPv6 loopback prefix. (a) This document should follow > the format recommendations of RFC 5952 section 4.3 and lowercase the "F"s. > But > (b) more importantly, I'm not sure how implementations may treats this space. > > The use of an RFC4291 section-2.5.5.2 mapped v4 address doesn't necessarily > make the packet a part of an IPv6 connection. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I > have a strong feeling about this as it may still exercise enough of the IPv6 > stack in a VTEP. > > I definitely do think that in the case of BFD on the management VNI targeting > an IPv6 link-local address of the VTEP would be better. However, I expect > that > if ::ffff:127.0.0.0 does prove to have some issues in the future a -bis can be > written quickly with a recommendation. > > Also, Suresh may have ideas for a solution. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09.txt - > draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-10.txt.html>_______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
