|
Hi, all, I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review
Team's (TSVART) ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors,
but are copied to the document's authors for their information and
to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time
of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review
together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please
always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or
forward this review. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Major issues: As already noted in draft-intarea-tunnels, many
existing tunnel mechanisms are inconsistent or incorrect in
their support for IPv6 MTU requirements, both as transits for
IP packets and as IP endpoints. Although this document cites
existing standards, the inconsistency and incorrectness of
these standards should be addressed. It might be sufficient to
indicate that any tunneling mechanism selected MUST support
the minimum IPv6 MTU requirements independent of this
signalling mechanism (i.e, the signalling mechanism doesn't
address or correct any errors or inconsistencies in the tunnel
mechanism selected). Regarding IP endpoint requirements, it might be useful to consider whether this protocol could be extended to indicate the receiver payload reassembly limit when indicating support for each tunnel type, to assist the source in determining whether the resulting tunnel will be IPv6 compliant (rather than becoming a black hole for valid packet sizes). Additionally, for the transport protocol-based
tunnels, it would be useful to consider whether the protocol
could indicate not only the endpoint IP address but the port
number as well. Minor issues: It might be useful to consider IPsec TLS, and DTLS tunnels as well as those already listed. --- |