Hi Joe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:19 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt > > > > On 2/19/2014 8:05 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > > >> The draft that Joe and Fred are considering applies to environments where > >> egress routers are > commonly > >> capable of reassembling at line rate. Since this is a different > >> environment, it should be addressed > in > >> a separate draft. > > > > No, that is not correct - the draft we are considering accounts for all > > environments in which tunnel ingresses and egresses may be deployed. > > +1 and -1 > > +1 that the Intarea tunnel doc should address the generic case of > tunnels that transit IP packets, including as many specific examples as > possible. > > -1 that the GRE tunnel spec needs to start with "what is deployed", but > should compare that to the Intarea tunnel doc and provide a set of > "SHOULD" recommendations to help transition GRE tunneling to follow BCP.
I am OK with that. The same is true of my drafts on 6rd MTU and AERO MTU. They will wrap themselves around the generic intarea tunnel doc and then tell the restricting conditions that are specific to those environments. > (IMO the Intarea doc is really targeted as a BCP, even though previously > issued as informational). That sounds right to me. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
