Hi Joe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:24 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > On 2/24/2015 9:20 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:13 AM > >> To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > >> > >> Joe, > >> > >> The latter. The following is text from the draft: > >> > >> " This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the > >> payload or delivery protocol. It updates RFC 2784 [RFC2784]. Like > >> RFC 2784, this specification describes GRE how has been implemented > >> by several vendors." > > > > You are asking for Proposed Standards status. That goes beyond documenting > > just "what is", and specifies once and for all "what will forever be". > > This document will forever be "what is currently commonly used". > > We've been around the block on "let's describe what SHOULD be, but isn't > deployed". While I agree that's important, that is not the function of > this document.
There are two different intertwined issues that need to be teased apart. First issue is that this document and RFC2473 are in the same boat in terms of Fragmentation and MTU and the former should therefore cite the latter. Or, if the former has more to say (e.g., sending PTB with a size less than 1280) then it should also update the latter. Second issue is that both documents are susceptible to black holes if PTB messages are lost. Take for example a source node on the far side of the public Internet sending a too-large packet into a protected enclave in which there is a GRE tunnel. The tunnel ingress drops the packet and returns a PTB, but even though the tunnel is configured entirely within a protected enclave the PTB message is vulnerable to loss within the public Internet on the return path to the original source. AFAICT the document is suggesting more reliance on PTB whereas I am suggesting less. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
