Hi, Joel and Acee, On Jun 26, 2016 06:15, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 for the quick responses! The authors might consider making that assumption explicit, but this was a comment, not a Discuss, so just do the right thing, whatever that is :-) Spencer > 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
