Re: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast WGLC

[Wes Beebee <wbeebee@cisco.com>]

Title: Re: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast WGLC

One of the problems I have with this draft is that I don’t think all of the hardware platforms necessarily will support it in hardware.  Saying, “oh well, it’s a layer violation”, is not good enough – we routinely look at the ethertype (in the L2 header) of the packet and match it up with the L3 header to prevent bogus packets from exercising paths in the router that can lead to crashes.  This is called 
“sanity check”, and it is used for both security and stability reasons.  Just because the RP doesn’t do this kind of check (presumably for performance/layering reasons), doesn’t mean that the check isn’t being done in hardware.   Good luck trying to get the hardware teams to upgrade their hardware...

- Wes 


On 7/31/10 1:54 AM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the combined lists.

We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------