Oh - looping can happen naturally as a result of routing reconvergence. That's what the TTL is for, in part, to make sure those packets don't loop forever.
Micro-forwarding loops are common. Alia On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Alia, > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Typed too fast - looping wouldn't happen if the TTL is decremented. What >> would >> happen is that the packet would be dropped. I think the text change >> shows that >> but happy to poke more :-) >> > > Right, I'm talking about the problem where looping happens. > > Spencer > > >> >> Alia >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Alia, >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> So, that's two different issues? It might be be great to call them out >>> separately, if so ... >>> >>> Spencer >>> >>> >>>> 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
