On (03/28/17 22:27), Ron Bonica wrote:
> Good point! We addressed this in a previous version of the draft,
> but accidentally dropped it from the current version.
>
> Our current thinking is:
>
> - If the destination and probed interfaces are in the same VRF, the ICMP
> Extended Echo Reply message will reflect the state of the probed interface
> - If the destination interface is in the general or management VRF
> and the probed interface is in another VRF, the ICMP Extended Echo Reply
> message will reflect the state of the probed interface
> - Otherwise, the ICMP Extended Echo message will contain an error code
> indicating that the probed interface does not exist.
>
> I will add this back to the next revision of the draft.
>
Ok, but what about other forms of VRF-like virtualization like
network namespaces? Things can get a bit trickier here because the same
ifname can exist in multiple virtual objects.
Also, interface ownership can be more blurry for some of these
virtualization models like network namespaces- it's not always
clear that the hypervisor ("default netns") owns the interface,
when the interface is virtual.
--Sowmini
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
