Hi Spencer, I think that the "may not work properly" means that the packet would be dropped by the local PE. The looping issue would happen if the TTL weren't decremented and that language is being removed.
Regards, Alia On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Spencer Dawkins < [email protected]> wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Alia's Discuss. I see that there's proposed text to resolve > that position. > > I will remain a No-Objection if that proposed text is adopted, but I > would be more comfortable if the proposed text was more specific than > "may not work properly" - is there anything else that can go wrong, > besides unbounded looping? > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
