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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 10:05 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Hi Templin,
> 
> 
> > -----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.
> [Lucy] RFC2473 is about IPv6 in IPv6, i.e., IPv6 as a delivery network for IPv6 traffic. Since IPv6 packets and upper layer applications
> have to follow RFC2460, i.e., protect the misdelivery and corruption, so that is OK if there is only such kind of tunnel in IPv6. GRE-in-
> IPv6 is deferent. They can't be in the same boat. If there are various network protocols that are tunneled over a same IPv6 network, it
> will have a problem due to packet misdelivery and corruption. IMO: the draft needs to document these.

Oh, I thought you were concerned about lack of an integrity check for the encapsulating
IPv6 header. Are you saying that (in the RFC2473 case at least) it is OK to omit an integrity
check for the encapsulating IPv6 header as long as there is an integrity check for the
encapsulated IP header? But, somehow that is not OK for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6?

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

> Thanks,
> Lucy
> 
> 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