Hi Suresh, > I do have a suggestion > > OLD: > For L3 service, VNs transport IP datagrams, and a Tenant System is > provided with a service that only supports IP traffic. > > NEW: > For L3 service, VNs are routed networks that transport IP datagrams, and a > Tenant System is provided with a service that only supports IP traffic.
That's completely reasonable and appropriate - will do. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:58 AM > To: Black, David; The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; Matthew Bocci; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: (with > DISCUSS > and COMMENT) > > Hi David, > > On 09/15/2016 09:26 AM, Black, David wrote: > > Hi Suresh, > > > > Regarding your 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). > > > > In that example, the two IPV6 end systems need to be connected by a > > virtual link that provides L2 service, e.g. to make ND and ARP work. Do > > you have suggestions for text to add (and where to add it) that would > > make this clearer? > > I do have a suggestion > > OLD: > For L3 service, VNs transport IP datagrams, and a Tenant System is > provided with a service that only supports IP traffic. > > NEW: > For L3 service, VNs are routed networks that transport IP datagrams, and a > Tenant System is provided with a service that only supports IP traffic. > > > > >> * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion > >> concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG > >> discussed this? > > > > Well, IMHO, observing the intarea WG's level of engagement here, I > > don't think more "cooks" are needed on this topic . It'd be reasonable > > to add a sentence on this topic pointing to the intarea tunnels draft. > > :-). Agree with you on the "too many cooks" point. Alia mentioned there is a > follow up draft in nvo3 that discusses the issues. So I am fine even without > adding a reference to the tunnels draft. > > Thanks > Suresh _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
