This document should be in the standards track. Cheers, Rajiv
> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Int-area] updated to draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-03 > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:56:24 -0700 > From: Naiming Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hi Mark, > > Mark Townsley said the following on 07/25/2007 10:51 AM: > > > > Please also give us feedback on whether or not this > document should be > > published, and on what track. I am considering the Standards Track, > > shepherded directly by either me or Jari. > > I think it should be in the Standard Track. > > thansk. > - Naiming > > > > > - Mark > > > > Alia Atlas wrote: > > > >> I have updated the draft to reflect its goal of providing better > >> identification of the receiving interface to aid in troubleshooting > >> with traceroute. > >> > >> There are a few common scenarios that this draft is > intended to help > >> with. > >> > >> First, the receiving interface may be different than the outgoing > >> interface (which gives the source IP address in the ICMP packet) > >> because of either asymmetric link costs or ECMP. > >> > >> Second, the receiving interface may be unnumbered, so that > the source > >> IP address can't identify the interface. This is a problem for > >> troubleshooting when there are parallel unnumbered links. > >> > >> I would welcome any comments or discussion on this draft. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alia > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/15/07, *Alia Atlas* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/14/07, *Pekka Savola* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> > In general, I find the specification having > features that I > >> don't see > >> >> necessary. Reporting ifIndex is not necessary (and the > >> index is not > >> >> very useful as is to a human) if ifName is > >> reported. Addresses are > >> >> already known from the source address though > somewhat less > >> reliably so > >> >> those need not be reported for outgoing > interface use, and > >> could also > >> >> result in reporting IPv6 link-local addresses (or IPv4 > >> private > >> >> addresses) which wouldn't necessarily be > useful or desired. > >> > > >> > The idea with reporting the ifIndex is to > provide the easy > >> ability > >> > to correlate that to MIB data. It is a common > look-up key > >> and I > >> > believe it to be useful. > >> > > >> > Using simply the source address doesn't handle > topologies with > >> > parallel links between routers. In that case, > knowing the > >> exact > >> > outgoing link for troubleshooting is useful. ... > >> > >> (A potentially interesting note: at least one > implementation > >> has an > >> internal 'interface index' which is different from 'SNMP > >> ifIndex'. > >> The intent should be clear in the spec.) > >> > >> > >> Do you have improved phrasing you might suggest? > >> > >> If ifName is reported, is there significant > benefit in reporting > >> ifIndex as well? > >> > >> It could be more easily used for correlation, but > that's only > >> useful > >> for the operators of the network who could know > the ifIndexes > >> on the > >> routers, not outsiders. On the other hand, those network > >> operators > >> can very well map the ifName to ifIndex using SNMP > or similar > >> tools as > >> well. > >> > >> > >> True - I guess some of it depends whether the name or > ifIndex is > >> more private > >> and how many steps an operator has to take to get > decent results. > >> On the other hand, normal traceroute gives both the IP > address and > >> the DNS > >> name, if any. I was looking to provide the equivalent. > >> > >> I'm not strongly against being able to report > ifIndex (but I'd > >> rather > >> that it doesn't get reported by default, at least to > >> everyone), but it > >> seems like a feature that's more likely to clutter > the traceroute > >> output with little added value: ifName should > already provide > >> the same > >> benefits and is a more generic mechanism. > >> > >> > >> All of the additional info is optional and an operator could > >> determine what > >> to show based upon the incoming IP address or such. > >> > >> Again, I was going for duplicating the information > provided if an > >> IP address existed. > >> > >> Alia > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Int-area mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
