> I did read this document as part of my shepherding. > > Very well written and to the point. Thank you.
Thanks, Luigi. > I have a couple of nits that I put hereafter, marked with [LI]. I've just published -04, which includes your changes except the following one: > > Resolution may be recursive: the next-hop may itself be a prefix that > > requires further resolution to map to the outgoing interface and L2 > > address. V4-via-v6 routing does not prevent recursive resolution. > > [LI] Does this include any form of recursion or just v4 -> v6 -> v6 ….. etc ? > Can you clarify? Since we only define v4-via-v6, once you're in v6 land you stay there. If we were to ever define v6-via-v4 (which I'm not advocating), then you could in principle alternate between the two domains, which would likely lead to an increase in nervous breakdowns among network administrators. I'm not too keen on expanding on this statement, since I have no operational experience with recursive v4-via-v6, and I'm afraid I'll say something wrong. So please let me take the low-risk path of not saying anything more about recursion, at least until we get some operational experience with recursion together with v4-via-v6. Thanks again, -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
