[ippm] Re: ICMPv6 Loopback Draft - New Version
Sebastian Moeller <moeller0=40gmx.de-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ippm,gmane.ietf.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Tal, Attraktive feature, offering a better defined alternative to playing TTL games to get some parts of the received forward IP headers back. quick question, what about IPv4? Given that IPv4 will be with us for the foreseeable future it would be IMHO a good idea trying to keep ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 better aligned. Are there any obvious reasons (factual or procedural) I might be missing why restricting this to ICMPv6 is the best path forward? Regards Sebastian > On 4. Jun 2024, at 09:26, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > We have uploaded a new version of the draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mzbc-ippm-transit-measurement-option/ > > This version of the draft addresses the amplification issue that was > raised about previous versions of the draft. > > Please also note that we have a running demo of a utility called > ioam-ping which uses ICMPv6 Loopback messages: > https://github.com/talmi/IOAM-Ping-Demo > > Comments will be welcome. > Cheers, > Tal. > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]