Thanks Anoop. This is obviously only applicable to L3. I had already caught this one and updated the draft that I'm about to post.
Marc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:47 AM To: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) Cc: Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] nvo3 DP Reqs: TTL handling On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:09 AM, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea is whether to treat the nvo3 tunnel as a circuit (pipe model) or > the make all the nodes that an nvo3 tunnel traverses visible to nodes > outside the tunnel (uniform model) as discussed in rfc3443. > > The pipe model should be a MUST while the uniform model should be a MAY. I'd > like to hear from SPs/DC operators if they see any value with the uniform > model. If not, we will remove it from the draft. Not an SP/DC operator, but... If the tunnel payload is L2, then it doesn't make sense to meddle with the IP header within that payload...it would actually be a layering violation. If the tunnel payload is L3, then I guess one could go either way. Anoop _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
