Hi.
While reviewing draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-05 for gen-art, I
came across a
'common mode' issue with multiple discriminators that lead me to check
the various other seamless BFD drafts.
In the process I noticed the last paragraph in Section 5.1.1 of
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 contained the following text:
This also requires S-BFD control packets not be dropped by the
responder node due to TTL expiry. Thus implementations on the
responder MUST allow received S-BFD control packets taking TTL expiry
exception path to reach corresponding reflector BFD session.
This struck me as out of line with (AFAICS) every existing IP
implementation. TTL expiry checking is typically deep in the stack and
making an exception for this one case is (IMO) likely to be problematic.
It may even be a security issue. Have I misunderstood what is going on here?
Regards,
Elwyn
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
