Alia: Hi!
Xiaohu posted an update which I think should address your concerns. Please take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. On 12/2/15, 11:13 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: That works for me. Thanks, Alia On Dec 2, 2015 11:08 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxia...@huawei.com<mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Alia, > -----Original Message----- > From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:07 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: > draft-ietf-bess-virtual-sub...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-virtual-sub...@ietf.org>; > aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>; > bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>; > martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com>; > bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> > Subject: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with > DISCUSS) > > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: Discuss > > 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-bess-virtual-subnet/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for a clear and well-written document. I have one point that is > peripheral to most of the draft. > > In Section 4.3, it says: > > " In addition, for any other > applications that generate intra-subnet traffic with TTL set to 1, > these applications may not work properly in the Virtual Subnet > context, unless special TTL processing for such context has been > implemented (e.g., if the source and destination addresses of a > packet whose TTL is set to 1 belong to the same extended subnet, > neither ingress nor egress PE routers should decrement the TTL of > such packet. Furthermore, the TTL of such packet should not be > copied into the TTL of the transport tunnel and vice versa)." > > The idea of not decrementing TTL is quite concerning. I can conjecture cases > where there is a routing loop between the relevant PEs - during reconvergence > when a host moves from one datacenter to another is a trivial case. > > One approach may be to ask why a packet would have a TTL of 1 and determine > if this case must be resolved. Another might detecting a loop back to an > out-of-datacenter PE and dropping the packet. I'm sure you can develop other > good ideas and solutions. How about doing the following text change: " In addition, for any other applications that generate intra-subnet traffic with TTL set to 1, these applications may not work properly in the Virtual Subnet context, unless special TTL processing and loop-prevention mechanisms for such context have been implemented. Details about such special TTL processing and loop-prevention mechanisms are outside the scope of this document." Best regards, Xiaohu > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
