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

Hi Lucy,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:56 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: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:15 PM
> To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Hi Lucy,
> 
> Also, you say:
> 
> >  [Lucy] RFC2473 is about IPv6 in IPv6, i.e., IPv6 as a delivery network for IPv6 traffic.
> 
> but that is not correct. RFC2473 is about "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6", which could include encapsulation of IPv4, IPv6, or other
> network protocols - and not just
> IPv6 within IPv6 encapsulation.
> [Lucy] You are right. It has that generalization although very focusing on IPv6. The misdelivery and corruption issues are concern there
> too. The draft is very old (1998). IPv6 was barely deployed then. We should address or document these issues if we are working on it
> now.

RFC2460 is even older still - but, that does not necessarily mean we
should go back and add a checksum field to the IPv6 header. Like
RFC2460, RFC2473 is a standard and has been for a long time. So, if
we don't like it we would need to go back and deprecate it, right?

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

> Thanks,
> Lucy
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Templin, Fred L
> > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:52 AM
> > To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > Int-area@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area