Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels

[Lucy yong <[e-mail]>]

> The draft describes the arch and req. for use portion of the Internet 
> providing a link to other portion of the Internet.
> 
> There are also applications that using portion of the Internet 
> provides many links to individual private IP networks, i.e. one link 
> to one private IP network. e.g. network virtualization.

Network virtualization has many - often inconsistent and mutually conflicting - definitions. 
[Lucy] So a proper architecture helps resolving the mess.
E.g., IMO, any network that includes tunnels as links includes network virtualization. A truly virtual network is one composed entirely of tunnels, IMO.
[Lucy] not sure. 

> It would be useful for your draft to explicitly distinct two cases and 
> point out the requirements for both cases. For example, ICMP usage.

I don't see them as distinct. Whether a network is connected to the public Internet or not is less important than whether IPv4 or IPv6 is used as the network layer.
[Lucy] Less important does not mean not an important. Agree Ipv4 or Ipv6 as underlay is important one.

Can you clarify how the second case might be distinct from the first regarding ICMP use or any other aspect?
[Lucy] One example, in second case, upon receiving ICMP, the router that ingress tunnel terminate has to determine which network the msg need to be sent out while the first case only has one network over the tunnel. In second case, these networks using the same IP tunnel run in ship-in-night mode. In other words, dedicate tunnel vs shared tunnel. 

Lucy 

Joe


> Regards,
> Lucy
> 
> 
>  
>