Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is incorrect and needs to be fixed. For L3 service, Tenant Systems should expect the IPv4 TTL (Time to Live) or IPv6 Hop Limit in the packets they send to be decremented by at least 1. e.g. Consider two IPv6 end systems that are connected using an L3 service. If one of them is the router and another is a host on the same network a significant part of the Neighbor Discovery functions will stop working if the hop limit is decremented (from 255 to 254). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG discussed this? _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
