Network Management Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Comment (2010-02-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 2010-02-05 raises two points that should be considered: Section 2.2 seems like a lot of complexity (and acronyms) just to talk about the internal architecture of one box, and to define interfaces that won't ever be standardized. In one place in section 2.2, EMF is expanded to "Element Management Function." In the Terminology and elsewhere, this is "Equipment Management Function."
(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
Magnus Westerlund No Objection
Comment (2010-02-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Section 7.1: For IPv6, the reported Next-Hop MTU could be as low as 1280 octets (the minimum IPv6 MTU) [RFC2460]. Actually the reported MTU can be lower than 1280. The proper response is to send if I understand RFC 2460 is to send a <= 1280 bytes packet with fragmentation header. From section 5 of RFC 2460: In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination (i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280. In that case, the IPv6 node is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less than 1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets so that the IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router can obtain a suitable Identification value to use in resulting IPv4 fragments. Note that this means the payload may have to be reduced to 1232 octets (1280 minus 40 for the IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment header), and smaller still if additional extension headers are used.