Hi Eric,
thank you for your review, comments, and suggestions. Please find my
answers below under GIM>> tag. Also, attached is the diff to the working
version of the document that includes updates that Adam has suggested.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:51 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatr
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: No Objection
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 http
Greg,
Thank you for the new text but I still believe that forwarding in the data
plane a packet with TTL/HL=254 (assuming TTL/HL=255 at source) is less an issue
than forcing the control plane of a VNI/gateway to reply to a remote BFD (the
whole idea behind GTSM is to accept only local traffic).
Greg,
2nd reply as you replied in 2 messages ;-)
Please see in-line for EV>
But, for the most critical IMHO issue about using IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, I
had a look at RFC 8029 and RFC 5884 and was, honestly, shocked by their use of
IPv4-mapped addresses over the wire “just to add entropy”.
Carlos,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:22:28AM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> > 2019/12/18 午後4:41、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
> > But given that point, what precisely is the objection to the inner IP header
> > of the BFD for vxlan having a TTL of 1?
>
> The intent would be to protect of potentia
Adam,
[re: directing packets to the loopback network]
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 08:37:03PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
> I'm a little unclear about the scope of leakage that is causing
> concern here. If you simply want to prevent the packets from making
> it to an end host, there are a lot of choices
Hi, Jeff,
> 2019/12/19 午後1:06、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
>
> Carlos,
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:22:28AM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>>> 2019/12/18 午後4:41、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
>>> But given that point, what precisely is the objection to the inner IP header
>>> of the BFD for vxlan having
Carlos,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:12:56PM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> > 2019/12/19 午後1:06、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
Interesting. You're a bit more multi-lingual that I knew. :-)
> > The encapsulated packet's outer IP header, if single hop, could certainly
> > benefit from GTSM procedu
Hi, Jeff,
Thanks for the dailogue and please see inline some follow-ups.
> 2019/12/19 午後3:38、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
>
> Carlos,
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:12:56PM +, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>>> 2019/12/19 午後1:06、Jeffrey Haas のメール:
>
> Interesting. You're a bit more multi-lingua
Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:18:24PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Ben,
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 02:02:46PM -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:24:48PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > > This is a clean summary of the considerations. At least a portion of the
> >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 02:02:46PM -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I think I can only touch on a few points before telechat-time rolls around,
> and will finish off afterwards.
as promised...
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:24:48PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > Benjamin,
> >
> > On Mo
11 matches
Mail list logo
