IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACE01A6F13 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:26:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTSuLiiWe2jU for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81871A1B71 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPW73613; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:26:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.130) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:26:06 +0000
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml703-chm ([10.193.5.130]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:25:55 -0800
From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Thread-Index: AdBWj9P2/0MeyqtaSNeQN3x378YX2g==
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:25:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545BB21@dfweml701-chm>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.146.235]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545BB21dfweml701chm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/k75LPCPlIm7qa24oGuir0B7ITS8>
Subject: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:26:14 -0000

Hi,

If this draft is to document the protocol of gre in IPv6 exact same as of gre in IPv4 and update rfc2784, IMHO, it should point out the gre application behavior differences in IPv4 network and IPv6 network. The exact same protocol does not mean the same behavior for an application since IPv4 and IPv6 networks have different behaviors such as header checksum.

Thanks,
Lucy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email