Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a > context where we understand how to build the surrounding infrastructure. > For example, if it were documented for data centers, based on

Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

On 14/05/2017 05:42, Tom Herbert wrote: > Hello, > > At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a > WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a > discussion on the list about what else is needed to be done for ILA > (Identifier Locator Addressing

Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a context where we understand how to build the surrounding infrastructure. For example, if it were documented for data centers, based on Facebook's experience, I would have trouble objecting to informational publication.

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

On 5/16/2017 4:24 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Interesting timing on this message, but see below: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:13 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: int-area@ietf.org >>

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

HI, Fred, AOK - I can add that. The point is that *IF* you get multiple answers (regardless of how), you use the min. And the ingress needs to determine that value before sending for sure and there's always the possibility of PMTUD doing odd things if ICMPs are blackholed here - but partial

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

Joe, > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt > > Fred, > > Regarding the

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

Interesting timing on this message, but see below: > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:13 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action:

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

Fred, Regarding the following point: On 3/28/2017 9:36 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > 19) Section 4.3.3, third paragraph, I thought it was said earlier > that all ingress/egress pairs must support the same MTU. I > thought we agreed earlier on that that multi-MTU subnets > don't work.

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt

HI Fred, I'm in the process of the next update, and wanted to clarify the following: On 3/28/2017 9:36 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > 18) Section 4.3.3, For Multipoint Tunnels, please cite AERO, as > well as ISATAP [RFC5214] and 6over4 [RFC2529]. They define > an NBMA multipoint tunnel