Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Sat, 07 March 2015 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446111A87A5 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0in1rOBcw9a3 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 824141A879E for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t2729an0005681; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:36 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-107.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-107.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.123]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t2729VOj005676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:32 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.229]) by XCH-BLV-107.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.7.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:09:31 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Thread-Index: AdBXbdfY1u3rjZCDS1GBQOYYyX4bpAAET6LQAD8AzmA=
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:09:30 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E13D92@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CO1PR05MB442AAF3B29AE72283B8B5C0AE1F0@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545C68A@dfweml701-chm>
In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545C68A@dfweml701-chm>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/3BSocDUQIeTfKiKzTZg04INMSOc>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:09:39 -0000

Hi Lucy,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:09 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> RFC2784 has this statement: See [RFC1122] for requirements relating to the
>    delivery of packets over IPv4 networks.
> Does this apply to over IPv6 networks?
> 
> Since IPv6 header does not have checksum, if a packet is mis-delivered to GRE decapsulator, will that cause a concern? This is not a
> concern when IPv4 network is the delivery network.

In terms of header integrity checks, they are very much in the same boat as RFC2473.
But, somehow that got standardized.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Thanks,
> Lucy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:57 AM
> To: int-area@ietf.org; Lucy yong
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Hi Lucy,
> 
> The goal of this draft is *not* to prove the GRE behaves identically with IPv6 as it does with IPv4. In fact, its goal is to point out the
> differences.
> 
> Can you think of any differences between the two GRE environments that we have failed to point out?
> 
>                                                                                                        Ron
> 
> 
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:25:54 +0000
> > From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
> > To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> > Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545BB21@dfweml701-
> > chm>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If this draft is to document the protocol of gre in IPv6 exact same as
> > of gre in
> > IPv4 and update rfc2784, IMHO, it should point out the gre application
> > behavior differences in IPv4 network and IPv6 network. The exact same
> > protocol does not mean the same behavior for an application since IPv4
> > and
> > IPv6 networks have different behaviors such as header checksum.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lucy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area