Fred,
The problems of PTB loss and forgery apply to IPv6 fragmentation in general.
They are not specific to GRE tunneling. Therefore, they are beyond the scope of
the current draft.
I invite you to a thought experiment. Imagine a network. At one end of the
network is a GRE ingress and at the other end is a GRE egress. Both tunneled
and non-tunneled traffic traverse the network.
The network drops ICMP PTBs. To make matters worse, somebody is forging ICMP
PTBs. How do these impact tunneled packets differently from non-tunneled?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:45 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; Joe Touch; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:40 AM
> > To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Because RFC 2784 is PS, and this document UPDATES the procedures
> > defined in RFC 2784, we have no choice but to ask for PS. (You can't
> UPDATE a PS with INFORMATIONAL).
> >
> > So, I guess we have no choice other than to discuss what should be.
> >
> > Please make your case that what we have in draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 is
> not what should be.
>
> The case is already made that the PTB messages this document relies on can
> be lost or forged, resulting in a black hole or degenerate MTUs. So what
> should be is correct continuous operation even when PTB messages are lost
> or forged.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
>
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:24 PM
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
