Hello Pekka, Thank you for the response.
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 08:07 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Chan-Wah Ng wrote: > > We have written a draft on the formation of tunnel loops, and possible > > approaches on loop detection. > > > > As it is a general problem for tunneling protocols, the draft was > > written for intarea. However, there has been recent discussions on the > > Mobility Extension WG on the HA loop threat, and even more recently in > > 3GPP CT1. Hence, this announcement is cross-posted to Mext as well. > > > > We would like to solicit for comments on the draft, and suggestions on > > possible way forward. > > As you point out, IPv6 tunnel spec already has tunnel encapsulation > limit, which you point out, could be even better. But my concern is > how much this is a problem in practise. Among those IPv6 tunnel > implementations I've looked at, none of them implemented tunnel > encapsulation limit. I wonder -- if they didn't bother to implement > that, what would make them to bother implement this? > AFAIK, Linux has always implemented the TEL option in /net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c since the early 2.6.0 days. In any case, a lack of implementation should not be used as an argument against a possible fix to the problem -- especially if it is IPv6 we are talking about (which is still far from being as pervasive as it should be). As to whether there is a practical need to fix this problem, it is up to the IETF community to decide. The information I can provide to help make that decision is both Mext WG and 3GPP CT1 has acknowledged it as a problem. /rgds /cwng > It appears there was a -00 I-D in IPng WG in 2002, which the probable > intent of getting the IPv6 tunnel spec to draft standard, but the work > dried up. > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
