Fred, On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Carlos, Responding to threads is made difficult by those who insist to use rich text instead of plain text, For clarity, I am (like you) responding in multipart/alternative [1]. Feel free to tell your MUA to use the text/plain part, if that’s your preference (or be liberal in what you accept). but see below: but see below: Fred [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:39 AM To: Templin, Fred L Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; Joe Touch; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Fred, void respond_to_thread(void) { printf”Like RFC 2784, this specification describes GRE\n how has been implemented by several vendors.\n”; >>> Then, that would be an Informational; not a proposed standard. Your inline broke the callback; however, the answer is in the “Like RFC 2784” part. Thanks, Carlos. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046#section-5.1.4 } Thanks, — Carlos. PS: Fixing PTBs and ICMPs for tunnels is great, but orthogonal to this draft. Maybe you want to start a new thread. PSS: As mentioned already, let’s not hijack this thread and this document on the PTB and MTU manifestos. On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hey Guys, If you permit the tunnel ingress to send PTB with MTU<1280, the original source will respond by sending subsequent packets with a fragment header included so the ingress can fragment the payload packet (at least that is the behavior expected by RFC2460, but not all hosts observe that). But, that is exactly the behavior Fernando Gont is trying to deprecate in his “atomic fragments” work. Then there are also others who want to deprecate IPv6 fragmentation altogether. I appreciate what you are going for, but there are a number of factors that would appear to block it. Thanks – Fred [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> […] 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". RFC 2784, a Proposed Standard, does exactly what you say goes beyond what it should do (forever). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2784#section-1 Finally this specification describes the intersection of GRE currently deployed by multiple vendors. In other words, PS and “what is” are not conflicting. — Carlos.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
