Re: draft-ietf-udlr-lltunnel-03.txt - Typographical comments.

[Dr G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

The current draft is a vast improvement, and much clearer!

I enclose a few typographical queries on draft-ietf-udlr-lltunnel-03.txt.

------------
4. Problems related to unidirectional links

Last paragraph may make an untrue generalisation (any comments?):

The current draft says "Most protocols in the Internet assume"  which seems
a rather bold (and possibly wrong) statement - perhaps the draft should
say "many protocols"?

Similarly there is a general reference to "routing protocols" ...
"not behaving properly", I don't think this is universally got to be
true - but there are a number of cases (e.g. RIP as cited) where it is
certainly true.

Ingress filtering, and policy routing by ISPs could also introduce
problems.

------------

6.2.1

Point 3 (would be helpful to note point in 9.2)

Multicast routing rather than bridging, would suggest that multicast
packets are not ***necessarily*** rebroadcast to all feeds, but only
to feeds which have members of the appropriate multicast group. (This
is suggested in 9.2, but isn't cross-referenced here).


------------
9.2 para 4 terminology

Is "multicast daemon" an appropriate form of words? - Perhaps consider
"feeds and receivers may implement multicast routing".

------------

References

No reference is made to RFC2488 or RFC2670 which describe other issues
relating to performance when using asymmetric capacity. It may (perhaps) be
helpful to refer readers here?

------------

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst.