Skip to main content

A Widely Deployed Solution to the Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Fragmentation Problem
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-05

Yes

(Alia Atlas)
(Brian Haberman)

No Objection

(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-05-09 for -04) Unknown
from Tom Taylor's opsdir review (looks like it's being addressed already)

My apologies -- I let this slip way past due date. This is a review of operational aspects of this document, primarily for use by the OPS area ADs in their evaluation of the document.

Summary: this document describes a commonly encountered set of implemented procedures for handling fragmentation of GRE packets. The described procedures include configuration options. The document is well-written and ready to go subject to the following observations, all of which are trivial except for the second minor issue noted below.

Tom Taylor

1) Very minor issue: there is no advice to the operator on coordinating the configuration of the ingress and egress nodes. Section 3.3.2 assumes that configuration is coordinated (i.e., fragmented GRE delivery packets are reassembled at egress). Section 3.4 simply presents the option. This could be fixed by changing the relevant sentence of 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 as follows:

OLD
   If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
   egress.

NEW
   If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
   egress if the latter is configured to do so.

2) Minor issue: 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 final paragraph:
   s/delivery header/delivery packet/



Typos:

Last paragraph before Sec. 3, second line: s/lager/larger/

3.3.1.1 second paragraph, last line on page 5:
    s/an Next-hop MTU/a Next-Hop MTU value/

3.3.1.2 first line: s/send/sends/

Sec. 5 last paragraph, fourth last line: s/includes/include/

_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
OPS-DIR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-05-14) Unknown
Thank you for adding text on fragmentation attacks.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-05-14 for -04) Unknown
I agree that adding a para in response to Kathleen's discuss is a good plan.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown