Feedback follows... On 7/10/2016 11:01 PM, wangzitao wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > Thank you for reviewing this draft, and giving these valuable comments > > please find my answer in-line and tagger [zitao] > > > > Best Regards! > > -Michael > > > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2016年7月8日4:29 > 收件人: wangzitao; [email protected] > 抄送: Zhengguangying (Walker); Aijun Wang; Adam Mate Foldes; Zhuangyan > (Yan) > 主题: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for > draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-02.txt > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2016 6:16 PM, wangzitao wrote: > > ... > > > > > > Clear-df is ambiguous - tunnel ingresses MUST be able to > source-fragment encapsulated packets. The decision on whether to > fragment the "inner" > > packet (transiting the tunnel, i.e., the TTP per > draft-intarea-tunnels) is made by the associated router, not at the > (virtual tunnel) interface (i.e., corresponding to the ingress). > > [zitao]: good point, we will consider to redesign this attribute and > add more descriptions like: > > leaf pmtud{ > > type boolean; > > description > > “When you enable PMTUD, the interface sets the Don't Fragment > (DF) bit > > on all packets that traverse the tunnel. If a packet that enters the > tunnel encounters > > a link with a smaller MTU than the MTU value for the packet, the > remote link drops > > the packet and sends an ICMP message back to the sender of the packet. > > This message indicates that fragmentation was required (but not > permitted) > > and provides the MTU of the link that dropped the packet.”; > > } >
That should also be clearly indicated as information to the tunnel ingress to guide ingress source fragmentation ONLY. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
