Re: [Int-area] Reviews of "IP Router Alert Considerations" document

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've got some more comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-02.txt before WGLC:
Section 3:
>  Secondly, some protocols requiring punting may be
>    carried over a transport protocol (e.g., TCP or UDP) possibly because
>    they require the services of that transport protocol or perhaps
>    because the protocol does not justify allocation of a scarce next
>    level protocol value. 

You may add that one also gets discouraged using other protocols by
anticipated deployment problems due to firewalls and NATs filtering
"unknown" protocols.

> Therefore,
>    it is generally not possible to ensure that only the IP Router Alert
>    packets of interest are punted to the slow path while other IP Router
>    Alert packets are efficiently forwarded (i.e., in fast path).

This statement is IMHO misleading, because the following paragraph
actually points out that considering the value field is such a possibility.

> However, only one
>    value (zero) was defined in [RFC2113] and no IANA registry for IPv4
>    Router Alert values was available until recently. 

You may add a reference to [RFC5350] here:
was available until recently [RFC5350].

Regards,
 Roland