Fred,
The approach taken by RFC 2473 is similar, but not identical to the approach
taken by draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. Please compare the text in RFC 2473,
Section 7.1.b to the corresponding text in Section 3.1 of
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. They are different and need to remain different
in order to accommodate future possibilities.
BTW, I think that this conversation may have come full circle. Do others on the
mailing list think that it continues to be productive?
Ron
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:01 PM
To: Ronald Bonica; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Joe Touch; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Ron,
See below:
Thanks – Fred
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Joe Touch; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Fred,
I think that we have drifted off the topic of draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 and
moved to a discussion of atomic fragments.
>>> Atomic fragments are really all that is interesting and different about
>>> draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ip6;
>>> otherwise, the considerations are no different than for RFC2473. So, if you
>>> don’t want to talk
>>> about atomic fragments please cite the RFC2473 text normatively.
Ron
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
