*I do not support this draft in the current form. * This document instead of improving the original specification makes it actually worse.
Point 1 - Original RFC sec. 6.2: o Network Address of Next Hop = IPv6 address of Next Hop Proposed text: o Network Address of Next Hop = VPN-IPv6 address of Next Hop whose RD is set to zero As it has been explained when you negotiate in capability AFI2 as next hop it is just 16 octets - not 24. Next hop never has an RD. The fact that some implementations are matching length of NLRI with length of next hop no where should be made equal that next hop has 8 octet dummy Route Distinguisher. If revision is to be made would be to explicitly negotiate capability to infer next hop encoding from the length. Point 2 - Addition of section 6.3 and SAFI 129 is fine, but again next hop encoding is lightly stating suboptimal. Conclusion: As we have discussed on and off line if revision is to be made let's make it both backwards compatible, Let's make it applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 next hop addresses and let's allow explicit capability where implementations could indicate that it can recognize next hop value from its length. After all we are talking about just 4 discrete possible values here. Cheers, Robert. On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:36 PM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group > list. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't > progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. > > > > Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > > This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th December 2019. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
