On June 16, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Hi!
> > Open Issue 1: Discussion on TTL/Hop Limit = 1
> >
> > Proposed Action: Greg has proposed text he will send to the working group
> > suggesting GTSM procedures be utilized. The expected concern is how this
> > impacts existing impl
Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the suggestion. I have a question. The current version
references RFC 5082:
TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the
Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5082].
RFC 5881, while stating the requirement for the TTL or Hop Limit value,
re
Greg,
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 9:05 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> thank you for providing continued support and guidance. Please find my
> notes in-lined under tag GIM>>. Attached are the new working version and
> its diff to -12. There are two remaining Open Issues - 7 and 9. I much
> appreciate your c
Greg:
Rfc5881 already specifies using GTSM…this document depends on rfc5881, so
the reference should be the BFD behavior.
Alvaro.
On June 17, 2020 at 2:40:52 PM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the suggestion. I have a question. The current version
references
Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the clarification. I will update the reference by using the
text you've suggested.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alvaro Retana
wrote:
> Greg:
>
> Rfc5881 already specifies using GTSM…this document depends on rfc5881, so
> the reference should be the BFD
Hi Jeff,
thank you for the additional details. I've top-posted the discussion thread
regarding a firewall, VTEP, and drop rules. I recall that the relevant text
was suggested based on deployment experience. I will try to update it along
the suggested lines:
I think the rewording would include some
