[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Section 2.4, item (f) of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt



Fred,

Good point regarding ICMP rate-control at logical (or pseudo) interface 
level, a typical example being tunnel interfaces.

I hope Mukesh takes note.

Thanks,
Alex

Fred Templin wrote:

> Alex,
> 
> --- Alex Conta <aconta@txc.com> wrote:
> 
>>My concern is clarity.
>>
>>"The rate-limiting parameters SHOULD be configurable per node.
>>and/or per interface if the node has dissimilar speed/bandwidth interfaces.
>>
>>is not clear enough.
>>
>>"The rate-limiting parameters SHOULD be configurable per node.
>>If a node has dissimilar speed/bandwidth interfaces, the rate-limiting 
>>parameters SHOULD be configurable per interface.
>>
>>is clearer.
> 
> 
> To be even clearer still, perhaps there should be some mention
> of what is meant by "interface". In particular, it seems that
> rate limiting could be either per-physical interface (like,
> one rate limiting parameter per multi-access Ethernet link)
> or per-logical interface (like, one rate limiting parameter
> per pt-to-pt tunnel).
> 
> In the former case, a single rate limiting parameter could
> produce too few ICMPs for some neighbors but too many for
> others. In the latter case, rate limiting parameters are
> per-neighbor and provide the correct levels of ICMPs. But,
> the physical/logical interface distinction should be
> clearly spelled out.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> osprey67@yahoo.com
> 
>  
> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------