I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
Marc
Depending on whether or not the packet arrived at its destination determines if it is loss or tunneling. In the event it is tunneled, please be certain to filter the packet as de-encapsulation is a bit... messy.
Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a
recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?
I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. 
Scott
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
I was disappointed in this RFC -- Section 3.1 didn't include the proper discussion of the difference between African and European avian carriers, and we know what happens if that question is asked at the wrong time.
--Steve Bellovin, Steven M. Bellovin
That discussion would be out of scope for the document's purpose as I believe African and European carriers are currently IP version agnostic. However, rapid genetic changes arising from the increased environmental radiation in the northern hemisphere vs that in the southern hemisphere due to the global circulation of the Japanese radioactive plume may require we revisit this issue in a few years.
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows
provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
Owen
Swallows have MTU issues.
Which? African or European Swallows?
(Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge)
Owen
Which? African or European Swallows?
(Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge)
So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section, too...
Isn't that what the uvula is for?
Oh... never mind.... wrong swallow.
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:34:52 -0500
Subject: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
From: Chad Dailey <nanog@thedaileyplanet.com>Swallows have MTU issues.
No swallows? Oh, spit.
People just don't put enough *thought* into their April 1 RFCs anymore...
Cheers,
-- jra
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the contrary.
Greetings,
Jeroen
Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a new
brown M&M to put into the contracts...
You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.
In a message written on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:39:03PM -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.
It may be a Eurasian Hobby to make such silly statements, but to
me it just seems like an Imperial Shag, and a waste of everyone's
time.
A Brown Kiwi once told me that the Cardinal rule of mailing lists
was to wait your Tern, and not cause any ruffled feathers. However,
many folks seem to be Superb Parrots, repeating the same discussion
over and over. Others are too Chicken to join in.
Eventually this can become the Swan song for a mailing list. Once
the Common Nighthawks take over, it's done. A Swift decline will
occur, for sure, which is often hard to Swallow.
But, I posted this on a Lark. Not to Crow about it, but I think I
did quite a bit better than a Common Babbler, and Warbled my way
to a fun to read post, a hoot if you will.
Hopefully folks don't think this was a Fowl.
I wonder what NYC paramedic David Roth would think, to find out that
he'd coined a bit of technical jargon, quite by accident.
Cheers,
-- jra