Are we still on topic?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:30 PM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-07.txt
>
> HI Joe,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:14 AM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-07.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/2015 9:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > ...
> > > BTW, the AERO spec already does this kind of probing.
> >
> > And yet we are *still* not talking about AERO.
>
> I have pointed you to AERO repeatedly and you seem to be reaching some of
> the same conclusions that are already in AERO. You are saying use a positive
> confirmation of a successful probe. AERO has been saying that for a long time
> now. You are saying do something drastic if probes fail - AERO says fragment
> and you say shut down. But, both are just drastic measures that are taken
> only if probes fail.
>
> From this discussion, I have learned that AERO should really be doing
> RFC6438-style flow label assignments, meaning that ECMP/LAG can take the
> packets across different paths - all of which need to be probed. But, that is
> really just an augmentation of what is already in AERO. I have also learned
> that probing for 1280 is sufficient in environments where it is operationally
> reasonable to expect that PMTUD will work, whereas probing for 1500 is
> needed when there is no such operational assurance.
>
> > Can we please get back to the subject of this doc?
>
> I have indulged your line of discussion in significant detail.
> You owe me a critique of AERO.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
