On 12/1/2016 10:35 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Joe, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:21 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>; Lucy yong >> <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on >> draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels >> >> Hi, Fred, >> >> To wrap up: >> >> - Subnet Redirects appear to rely on AERO-specific mechanisms, so would >> not be of more general relevance to a bis doc IMO > RFC6706 already specifies how these Redirects work and is agnostic to the > link type. AERO(bis) tells how they work on AERO links through use of the > IPv6 ND protocol on a specific link type. My point is that the IPv6 ND extension would not be of generic use on other IPv6 nets because of the lack of endpoint authentication.
> >> - multiple link addresses are already part of the Ethernet spec and >> already handled by most IP over Ethernet implementations (and TOS >> marking correlation is defined in 802.1p). > I'd like to see what you are talking about so I can compare it to what > AERO is doing. See below... > >> When you assign more than >> one link address to a single physical interface, you're acting as if you >> have multiple links. > No, you are acting as if there are multiple link-layer addresses on the > same link. > >> At that point, the forwarding table indicates not >> only the next-hop IP but the outgoing link -- for multiple link >> addresses these are treated as different virtual interfaces already. > Going with what I just said above, the forwarding table indicates only > the next-hop IP. It is the neighbor cache entry for the next-hop IP > that includes the multiple link-layer addresses. But, it is all one link. It acts exactly like one NMBA link on which your endpoint has multiple virtual interfaces. > >> - I agree that IPv6 ND was done in an INTAREA WG; the same might be true >> for AERO, but the INTAREA WG should be a place where generic aspects of >> all Internet layer issues should be addressed, not domain-specific >> solutions (IMO). >> >> AERO might be one doc, but it is 60+ pages with over 70 revisions. I don't >> think it would be useful to bog down INTAREA with >> something that large. > The document size and number of revisions are irrelevant. By making it > an intarea doc, it would revert back to a -00. That helps only the number of revisions issue; the point is that the work associated with this doc involves substantial effort for review. Anything that intensive IMO should involve the commitment of creating a BOF and WG as evidence there is sufficient interest. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Intemail@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area