Hi, Elwyn, Thanks for the re-review of a different document :-) All comments welcome and help, thanks.
> On May 4, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > See first para of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4379#section-4.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4379#section-4.4>, as one example, of this OAM practice. Thanks, — Carlos. > Regards, > Elwyn
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
