Hi Alia, On 09/15/2016 09:21 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Suresh Krishnan > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 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 > <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/ > <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). > > > The tenant systems are connected across a cloud that is viewed as containing > at least one router in them. If an L3 service is offered, then the > architecture > expects that the tenant systems are connected to at least one router. Not > requiring a TTL decrement would make it look like the tenant systems were > connected on the same L2 segment. > > The tenant systems are expected to be hosts, not routers. Does that help?
Yes. Absolutely. I did not get that from the description in the draft earlier, but that makes sense. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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? > > > Yes - standard discussion about understanding the size of the header and > setting the MTU accordingly. There is also an individual draft talking about > MTU discovery > and how to pass that info on, but not adopted as a WG item. Great. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
