Lucy,
Would the following text work?
OLD>
Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its
own, it is subject to corruption. However, even if the delivery
header is corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in
misdelivery of the payload is extremely low.
<OLD
NEW>
Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its
own, the destination address in the delivery header is subject to
corruption. If the destination address in the deliver header is corrupted,
the following outcomes are possible:
1) The delivery packet is dropped because the new destination address is
unreachable
2) The delivery packet is dropped because the new destination address is
reachable, but that node is not configured to process GRE delivery packets from
the ingress
3) The delivery packet is processed by a GRE egress other than that which
was originally specified by the GRE ingress. Processing options are:
a. The payload packet is dropped because the payload destination is
unreachable from the node that processed the delivery packet
b. The payload packet is delivered to its intended destination because the
payload destination is reachable from the node that processed the delivery
packet
All of these outcomes are acceptable.
<NEW
Ron
From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:50 PM
To: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Thanks authors to add section 4.1.
I am not sure if the statement of “However, even if the delivery header is
corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in misdelivery of the
payload is extremely low.” is proper. IPv6 requires the end point/upper layer
to deal with the header corruption. Could we state that this is the difference
from gre-in-ipv4 instead?
Lucy
From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zuniga, Juan
Carlos
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:27 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Dear Int-Area and 6man WGs,
At the Int-Area WG meeting in Dallas there were some comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. It was decided to submit the document for WG Last
Call to the Int-Area & 6man WGs as soon as the agreed changes were made.
The document has now been updated accordingly, so this email starts an
Int-Area/6man WGs Last Call on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-04
Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send comments by
2015-04-06.
In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR)":
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6?
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)
Best,
Juan Carlos Zuniga
(as Int-Area WG co-chair)
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
