On 6/26/16, 2:00 AM, "joel jaeggli" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.. Agreed. Additionally, if necessary, OSPFv3 can avail IP fragmentation and reassembly. Thanks, Acee > >> If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I >> needed to ask :-) >> >> > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
