On 6/25/16 8:21 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: No Objection > > 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-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This was nice work. > > I did have one question - I don't think it would be a likely problem, but > is it worth pointing out that you're taking OSPFv3 payloads that might > have been sized for IPv6, and encapsulating them as IPv4 payloads that > might have a smaller MTU?
Given that these devices have a common link mtu (otherwise they would have trouble forming adjcency over the broadcast domain) the opfv3 payload will always be sized for the v6 network which means the ipv4 variant of the packet packet will always be 20 bytes smaller due to the ipv6 header being 20 bytes larger then the v4 one.. > If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I > needed to ask :-) > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
