Yes - my thought is perhaps a BCP?? It's clearly an interoperability problem. What is interesting is to discuss the issue and see what could be done.
Alia P.S. Thanks for the quick reading and response! On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We are likely to add this draft to the list to be discussed in the > meeting. It is discussing some general problems with MTU configuration > between vendors. While it discusses this for ISIS, some aspects also apply > to OSPF. > > > > Basically, there are three problems: > > > > a) Some implementations use L2 MTU and others use the L3 MTU > > b) Different implementations pad and check for different lengths. > Consequences are that ISIS sessions do not make it to Up. > > c) Different numbers of MPLS labels are assumed as the max, resulting in > fragmentation, and there are generally no controls for it. > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps/ > > > I'm interested in understanding what the authors would like to see from > this. It would be well outside of the IETF's charter to say that > implementations must configure MTU in only one manner. > > At best, I see this document as saying 'be consistent', which seems like > spitting upwind. > > Tony > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
