RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-19 Thread Miya Kohno
Hi Pekka, >> It seems that the point is not really that of reduced performance, but >> rather that complying with this requirement would require a change in >> the silicon? >> >> If that's the case (i.e., no real performance implications), then it >> looks like an appropriate fix for this issue. -

Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-18 Thread Mark Smith
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:20:56 +0300 (EEST) Pekka Savola wrote: > Hi, > > I changed the subject, because the original intent was lost in the > weeds. > > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Olivier Vautrin wrote: > > It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with > > RFC4443. But this has n

Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-17 Thread Pekka Savola
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Fernando Gont wrote: AFAICT, it does. It says: "and the destination address on the packet seems to be on-link (in terms of Neighbor Discovery) on the point-to-point interface". Or am I missing something? Yes, you're right. I was not reading the text carefully enough.

RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-17 Thread Olivier Vautrin
> > > FWIW, "Packet may be forwarded back on the received interface" is > > actually, AFAIK, used in certain PE routerscenarios where you ping > > yourself over a p2p link. > > Is the echo request/response really forwarded back on the received > interface? (isn't the *response* that is forwarded

Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-17 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
At Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:02:07 -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: > >> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with > >> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It > >> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be > >> impacted. > > > > This, a

Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-17 Thread Fernando Gont
Hi, Pekka, >> It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with >> RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It >> is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be >> impacted. > > This, and what Ole Troan wrote on interface lookup, is interesting

draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

2010-08-17 Thread Pekka Savola
Hi, I changed the subject, because the original intent was lost in the weeds. On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Olivier Vautrin wrote: It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It is difficult to say though if some sm