Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Ron Bonica ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella ; spr...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF Subject: Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content

Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

On second thought, if we had the new ethertype, we wouldn’t need the new /16! They serve the same function Ron From: Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 1:05 PM To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella Cc: Adrian

Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

+1 If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt, we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used. Ron From: spring On Behalf Of

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-01.txt

Updated draft Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:15 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Hakan Alpan ; Radon Rosborough ; Bradely Newton ; Bradley Newton ; Miles President ; Manoj Nayak Subject: New Version Notification

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Joe Touch Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:44 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt Hi, Ron, A few things come

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

Folks, Please review and comment. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11:48 AM To: Ron Bonica ; Hakan Alpan ; Radon Rosborough ; Bradely Newton ; Miles President ; Manoj Nayak

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Folks, To the best of my knowledge, 508 messages have been posted to this mailing list regarding draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile. I wonder if that is a WG record? Ron Juniper Business Use Only

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Looks good to me Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:05 AM To: int-area@ietf.org Cc: Bob Hinden ; Ron Bonica ; IESG ; Joel Halpern ; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org; Joe

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Bob, I think that this is a close to consensus as we are going to get. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:29 PM To: int-area@ietf.org Cc: Bob Hinden ; Alissa Cooper ; IESG

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Folks, We appear to be rehashing issues that have been debated passionately before. And I think that we have the following options: 1) Continue to debate, as if we might someday converge on consensus. 2) Agree to disagree. If we follow the first path, we will need a continuity plan. As those

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

that validate its successful traversal and provide an alternate as a backup.” (and yes, if we’re going to try to imply that frag is limited, it really should be clear that this is *no different than any other protocol feature* in the Internet) Joe > On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Ron Bon

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Folks, Has anyone proposed text that: a) satisfies Alissa's request b) satisfies the WG If not, do we believe that such text could possibly exist? Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Folks, Will the reader parse our words with the same exactitude that we are parsing them? If not, we may be splitting a hair four ways. Ron See http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-tet1.htm Juniper Business Use Only -Original

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

+1 Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Joel M. Halpern Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:49 PM To: Alissa Cooper ; Tom Herbert Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area ; IESG ; intarea-chairs Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on

Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

U requirements of their customer > traffic can decide if they're going to try or not, or care or not. :-) > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:35, Ron Bonica wrote: > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > Could you refine the recommendation a little bit? If an ISP were to ask, > "

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Done > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:56 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Inline.. > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:45:45 -0800 > From: Tom Herbert > To: int-area > Subject: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06 > Message-ID: >t4m5b55yayl+np4...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hello, > > I have

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Inline... > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:40:39 +1300 > From: Brian E Carpenter > To: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt > Message-ID: <7bc33271-8cee-818a-036b-99d92d818...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05

Mike, All good points. Look for them all to be addressed in the next revision. Ron > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:42:47 +0100 (CET) > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > To: "internet-a...@ietf.org" >

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05 (Tom Herbert)

Tom, We seem to be talking past one another. Would you objection be satisfied if I deleted the sentence? Ron > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 3:03 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05 (Tom Herbert)

Inline….. From: Tom Herbert Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:27 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05 (Tom Herbert) On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 6:17 PM Ron Bonica mailto:rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: Tom, Please take a look at Sect

[Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05 (Tom Herbert)

Tom, Please take a look at Section 4.3 (Stateless Firewalls). How can the stateless firewall behave optimally without maintaining state? While flow labels may help in the case of load balancers, the don't help at all in the case of stateless firewalls.

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05

Brian, Fair enough. You will see that text in the next draft version. Ron > > Me too. I think the root of the problem is the word "compliant". To be > compliant with the IP model, middleboxes should not exist. I think what the > text is trying

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05

Joel, Good point. Section 4.4 talks about how load-balancing causes load-balancers to behave badly. In a sense, ECMP just another kind of load-balancing. So, I can add a short section after 4.4 demonstrating how the same problem can impact ECMP. Ron > >

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05

Folks, I am not aware of any IPR associated with this document. Ron > > Please indicate if you are personally aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-ietf- > intarea-frag-fragile-xx? > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Inline.. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 2:13 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: Ole Troan ; Joe Touch > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:57 AM Ron

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 12:46 PM > To: Joe Touch > Cc: Christian Huitema ; Ron Bonica > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 > > > > > On 30

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

. We don't need twelve. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 10:50 AM > To: Christian Huitema > Cc: Templin (US

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

To: Stewart Bryant Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 They don’t need to be deleted if you include them deliberately. There is no prohibition on citing such RFCs for your own documents historical background. Joe

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Ron > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:57 PM > To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert > > Cc: int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 > > Hi Ron, > > &g

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Fred, In your mind, are these blocking issues? Ron From: Templin (US), Fred L Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:47 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert Cc: int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-04.txt

-Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:26 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Robert M. Hinden ; Ole Troan ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org; Fernando Gont ; Geoff Huston ; Fred Baker ; Robert Hinden ; Fred Baker Subject: New Version Notification for draft

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Fred, Good idea. I will post a new version with a reference to RFC 4963 later today. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:51 AM > To: Ron Bonica ; int-area ; intarea- >

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Hi Tim, I will shamelessly plagiarize this text in the next version of the draft! Ron > > "While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, it is recommended >that for IPv6 UDP in particular, which includes DNS operation,

[Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Chairs, I have posted a new version of draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile, working in comments from Tom and Brian. If you see fit, please initiate a working group last call. Ron ___ Int-area

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

> To: Ron Bonica > Cc: Brian E Carpenter ; Joe Touch > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:02 AM Ron Bonica wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Fair enough. Does the following text w

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Brian, Fair enough. I have worked the 1280 byte requirement into Section 7.4. New text is included below. Ron 7.4. For Network Operators As per RFC 4890, network operators MUST NOT filter ICMPv6 PTB messages unless they are known

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

MUST provide network operators with all of the information required to make intelligent middle box deployment decisions. > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:44 PM > To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert > ; Joe Touch > Cc: int-a

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Tom, Joe, Brian, I haven't seen a response to this message. Can I assume that you are OK with this text? Ron > -Original Message- > From: Ron Bonica > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:35 PM > To: Tom Herbert > Cc: int-a

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Tom, Please look inline for a little compromise and a little pushback. I hope that we can reach consensus in this round. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:02 PM > To: Ron Bonic

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Folks, We thrashing over the example. Can everybody agree to the following text? Ron 7.3. For Middle Box Developers Middle boxes SHOULD process IP fragments in a manner that is compliant with RFC 791 and RFC 8200. In many cases, middle boxes

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

on the current state of IP fragmentation. It has no business defining new ICMP messages.) Can we address the new message in a separate draft? Ron From: Joe Touch Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:29 PM To: Ron Bonica

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Folks, Since we seem to have reached consensus on Section 7.1, let's take another stab at Section 7.3. I am looking particularly to Tom Herbert and Joe Touch for feedback, since they objected to the previous formulation. Proposed text follows Ron

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

Joe, Ack. I will run with your comments unless I hear an objection from Tom Herbert. Ron From: Joe Touch Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:46 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Tom Herbert ; Ole Troan ; int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

, November 12, 2018 7:07 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Tom Herbert ; Ole Troan ; int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation Notes below... On Nov 12, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Ron Bonica mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> wrote: Tom, OK. Let's see if the following text wor

Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

Hi Erik, Could you refine the recommendation a little bit? If an ISP were to ask, "What MTU is fit for my purpose?", how would we answer? Ron > Ron, > > Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including some > simple text recommending that network

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

vember 12, 2018 4:25 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ole Troan > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Joe, Tom, > > &

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

work-arounds. > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 2:02 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: Ole Troan ; Tom Herbert > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation > > Ron > > As I noted, S

Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

er 12, 2018 5:23 AM > To: Joe Touch > Cc: Tom Herbert ; Ron Bonica > ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation > > > > > On 12 Nov 2018, at 11:11, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 12

Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

Jen, This is a good idea. I will add it to the next draft version. Ron > recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would be > beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented packets > to/from operator's

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

fragments Ron > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:46 PM > To: Ron Bonica ; Fred Baker > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt > > Hi

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Fred, I don't see the work "fragment" in RFCs 5325 or 5326. Can you help me with better references? Ron > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:27 PM > To:

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

aintenance of a little more state. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 3:50 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

operators drop fragmented packets. This work was never complete. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 3:31 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-f

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Can you provide a reference that I can use in the document? > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 2:41 PM > To: Tom Herbert ; Joe Touch > > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area > Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-in

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Joe, Inline…… From: Joe Touch Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:47 PM To: Tom Herbert Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt Two points I'd like to make: 1) it is very important to list at least one other application

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Fred, Can you provide a reference to one of those applications? If so, I would be glad to add it to the draft. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:56 AM > To: Ron Bonic

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

craft a new section. What do you think? Ron From: Tom Herbert Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:33 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt On Mon

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Tom, Hope you are feeling better. Comments inline. Ron > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:55:16 -0700 > From: Tom Herbert > To: int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt > Message-ID: >

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Fred, Thanks for reviewing yet another version of the draft. But I would like to push back ever-so-gently on your proposed edit. We agree that the draft does not and should not propose the deprecation of IP Fragmentation. We also agree that IP tunnels require fragmentation. And because one

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-00.txt

Joe, While I agree that these NATs are broken, they are everywhere and they are not going away. We have to deal with the network that exists, imperfect though it is. Ron > > > A NAT that is broken isn?t helping users

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Joe, Inline... > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:14:42 -0700 > From: Joe Touch > To: Wassim Haddad > Cc: "internet-a...@ietf.org" , > "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered > Fragile > Message-ID:

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Brian, I agree that we need more text in this area. Let's chat off-line. Ron > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:37:48 +1200 > From: Brian E Carpenter > To: Wassim Haddad , > "internet-a...@ietf.org" > Cc: "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" >

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

> > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:46:16 -0700 > From: Tom Herbert > To: "Templin (US), Fred L" > Cc: Wassim Haddad , > "internet-a...@ietf.org" , > "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered > Fragile >

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Hi Tom, Thanks for your review. Comments inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert > Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:03 AM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 > > On Mon, Mar 5, 201

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Fair enough. You will see that text in the next version of the draft. Ron From: C. M. Heard Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 12:01 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: draft-intarea-frag authors ; int-area Subject: Re: draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 On Thu, May 31

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Mikael, Response inline.. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:20 AM > To: int-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica > Subject: draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 > > > Hi, > > as promised

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch > Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:39 AM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 > > You might also want to l

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Hi Mikael, Thanks for your careful review. Responses inline. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 4:57 AM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intar

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

gmentation. Ron . > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:57 PM > To: Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> > Cc: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>; Ro

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 10:01 AM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica

[Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Folks, Please review draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 and provide comments. The URL is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01. Ron

Re: [Int-area] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Hi Stephan, Happy Holidays! Response inline... Ron > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Winter [mailto:stefan.win...@restena.lu] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:46 AM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; ops-...@ietf.or

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-10.txt

[mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:28 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Jen Linkova <fu...@google.com>; Reji Thomas <rejitho...@juniper.net>; J. Linkova <fu...@google.com>; Chris Len

Re: [Int-area] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro, Thanks for the review. Comments inline.. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:17 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-pr...@ietf.org; Luigi Iannone

Re: [Int-area] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Warren, Thanks for the review. Comments inline... Happy Holidays, Ron > -Original Message- > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:54 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

Re: [Int-area] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Ben, I am convinced. I will change the first MUST NOT to lower case in version 10. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:23 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@ju

Re: [Int-area] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, The bit lengths are in the RFC 4884 Object Header, along with Class-num and c-type. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:28 AM >

Re: [Int-area] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, Thanks for the review. Comments inline. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:11 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-pr...@ietf.org; Luigi Iannone

Re: [Int-area] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Benoit, Thanks for the review. AFAICS, RFC 4560 gives the user a way to initiate legacy PING/TRACEROUTE/LOOKUP remotely, from a management station. But, are still talking about legacy PING/TRACEROUTE/LOOKUP. All of their shortcomings are still evident when initiated remotely. For example,

Re: [Int-area] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, Thanks for the review. Responses inline.. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:21 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-pr...@ietf.org; Luigi Iannone

Re: [Int-area] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Alexey, Good point. I will remove that sentence from the next version of the document. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelni...@fastmail.fm] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:15 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

Re: [Int-area] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)

Alexey, Fair enough. I will remove that line from version 09 of the draft. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelni...@fastmail.fm] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:15 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-08.txt

. Ron -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:59 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Jen Linkova <fu...@google.com>; Reji Thomas <rejit

Re: [Int-area] [IANA #992480] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-08.txt

ntarea-probe@ietf.org; stefan.win...@restena.lu; > jeanmichel.com...@gmail.com; yaronf.i...@gmail.com; > stewart.bry...@gmail.com; int-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica > <rbon...@juniper.net>; michelle.cot...@iana.org > Subject: [IANA #992480] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intar

Re: [Int-area] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Stephan, Thanks for the thoughtful review. Responses inline. Rpn > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Winter > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 9:02 AM > To: ops-...@ietf.org > Cc:

Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Works for me. > -Original Message- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:19 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Joel M. Halpern > <j...@joelhalpern.com>; gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-intare

Re: [Int-area] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 6:24 AM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Joel M. Halpern > <j...@joelhalpern.com>; gen-...@ietf.org >

Re: [Int-area] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Hello Yaron, Thanks for the thoughtful review. Responses inline.. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 4:35 PM > To: sec...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

t: Monday, December 4, 2017 4:19 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > > Thank you Ron. > > On the E-b

Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Hi Joel, Thanks for the review. Responses inline.. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM > To: gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00

is running IPv6 only? What would the Extended Echo Reply return? Ron From: Jean-Michel Combes [mailto:jeanmichel.com...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:09 AM To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net&

Re: [Int-area] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00

Jean-Michele, Thanks for the thoughtful review. I will post a new version addressing your comments today or tomorrow. Responses inline.. Ron > Subject: [Int-area] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00 > Message-ID:

Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10

[mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:29 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> Cc: Wassim Haddad <wassim.had...@ericsson.com>; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 Regards, Wassim H. On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:09, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.

Re: [Int-area] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-04

Folks, Reji Thomas has reported the following typo in the draft. The following text: OLD> o E (Ethernet) - The E-bit is set if the A-bit is also set and IPv4 is running on the probed interface. Otherwise, the E-bit is clear. o E (Ethernet) - The E-bit is set if the A-bit is also

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-02.txt

12:36 AM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org; int- > a...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-02.txt > > It's partly there, but not quite ready. > > > > If the Interface Identification Ob

[Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-02.txt

? Ron -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:21 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Jen Linkova <fu...@go

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00.txt

Hi Carlos, Thanks for the review. Inline, below. Ron > > Hi, Ron, Authors, > > As I was reading over draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00, and wanted to share a > couple of observations for your consideration. > > > * Have you considered the tradeoff of

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

Hi Carlos, Thanks for the review. Regarding comment 1), I agree completely. I didn't know that there were any other utilities called "Extended Ping". Could you send me a pointer. I never liked the name XPING, anyway. Can you suggest a better name? Maybe "probe"? The following also come

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

Speaking as a co-author, I support it. > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:15:29 -0700 > From: Wassim Haddad > To: "int-area@ietf.org" > Cc: Wassim Haddad , > > Subject:

  1   2   >