Re: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Sun, 30 April 2017 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A1F129AD3 for <>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.512
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8PIkUovVGGI for <>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA51129AF4 for <>; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=32331; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493581440; x=1494791040; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qB3n3QO/jqsyU1gFGM3S04qfnXN31scTnNwnDgfJ0kg=; b=hrTuNTH1XmSmzl2ZB/OjYavB331KYZfWzlfXkARyNo1Cwd/uiGgL5NrF k7BOsqn5JrxhODT/oIthyydrPP2OklI581Q5/OO2oe/s3X0QnYzYRAt1k brTGWU3AtM/lf+lzPV/c1gJzgM2ea9CWpBym3C8BLKR20uNpgNumwyjsw Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,396,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="417066263"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2017 19:43:58 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3UJhwO4005312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:43:58 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:43:58 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:43:58 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <>
CC: "" <>, RFC Errata System <>, "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)
Thread-Index: AQHSwZVpYjRBuN4W+UWjHHVAZGnaGKHd9FxQgABvZ4D//+vusA==
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:43:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c8cbc9ccc7924bb59a6394978d757b54XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:46:09 -0000

Sasha -

The language you are asking to be changed is in regards to ARP. I am saying allowing an adjacency to be formed on a numbered LAN with mismatched subnets is neither introduced nor altered by these RFCs .
What is introduced is the possibility of operating on an unnumbered LAN - which is why the RFCs speak to that.

If you want to ask that protocol base specifications discuss ARP issues when mismatched subnets are allowed (which I am NOT encouraging you to do) then you will be directing your comments at the correct documents.
Asking that of these RFCs is inappropriate.


From: Alexander Vainshtein []
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:51 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc:; RFC Errata System; Naiming Shen (naiming);;;; Alvaro Retana (aretana);;
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)


Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

As I see it, the difference between the P2P and LAN modes is essential for OSPF:

- If an OSPF interface is a LAN (broadcast) interface, there is a check of the same subnet for received Hello packets. If the received Hello packets do not pass this check, they are discarded and an error is reported via SNMP.

- However, if an OSPF interface is a P2P interface, then the subnet check on the Hello packets is bypassed  by design as defined in Section 10.5 of RFC 2328:

                     The generic input processing of OSPF packets will

        have checked the validity of the IP header and the OSPF packet

        header.  Next, the values of the Network Mask, HelloInterval,

        and RouterDeadInterval fields in the received Hello packet must

        be checked against the values configured for the receiving

        interface.  Any mismatch causes processing to stop and the

        packet to be dropped.  In other words, the above fields are

        really describing the attached network's configuration. However,

        there is one exception to the above rule: on point-to-point

        networks and on virtual links, the Network Mask in the received

        Hello Packet should be ignored.

I.e., having different subnets on two ends of a PPP link would not cause any problems for OSPF - the adjacency would be successfully recognized, it would progress to its FULL state, and unicast traffic would cross such a link without any problem.

But if we have a P2P-over-LAN link (which is the case for RFC 5309), the result would be quite different - unless the ARP implementations go beyond what 5309 says and relax the check for all such links, be they numbered or unnumbered.

Do I miss something substantial here?



Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302


-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) []
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 5:19 PM
To: RFC Errata System <<>>; Naiming Shen (naiming) <<>>;<>;<>;<>; Alvaro Retana (aretana) <<>>;<>;<>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <<>>;<>
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)

Alexander -

I am not speaking for the RFC authors, but regarding your point:

> o          Are assigned with IP addresses and subnet masks yielding different

> subnets

I fail to see why this issue is unique to (or associated with) running in P2P mode.

The unnumbered case is specifically mentioned because in such a case it can be expected that the next hop address will be a loopback address and therefore there will be no common subnet.

But in the numbered case whether you have one neighbor in P2P mode or many neighbors in multi-access mode the msimatched subnet issue is the same. Therefore I see no reason why these RFCs should discuss it.



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of RFC

> Errata System

> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 1:16 AM

> To: Naiming Shen (naiming);<>;

><>;<>; Alvaro Retana (aretana);


> Cc:<>;<>;

> rfc-editor@rfc-

> Subject: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5309 (5007)


> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5309,

> "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols".


> --------------------------------------

> You may review the report below and at:



> --------------------------------------

> Type: Technical

> Reported by: Alexander Vainshtein <<>>


> Section: 4.3


> Original Text

> -------------

> For the ARP implementation (which checks that the subnet of the source

> address of the ARP request matches the local interface address), this

> check needs to be relaxed for the unnumbered p2p-over-lan circuits.


> Corrected Text

> --------------

> For the ARP implementation (which checks that the subnet of the source

> address of the ARP request matches the local interface address), this

> check needs to be relaxed for the p2p-over-lan circuits (both numbered

> and unnumbered).


> Notes

> -----

> Consider the following situation:

> 1.         Two routers, R1 and R2, are connected by a physical P2P  Ethernet

> link

> 2.         OSPFv2 is enabled on the interfaces representing the endpoints of

> this link.

> 3.      From the OSPF POV these interfaces:

> o          Are configured as P2P

> o          Belong to the same area

> o          Are assigned with IP addresses and subnet masks yielding different

> subnets

> 4.    ARP check mentioned in the problematic text is not relaxed.


> Under this conditions:

> -Both R1 and R2 will accept Hello messages sent by the other router

> (becase it ignores subnet in Hello messages received via P2P

> interfaces)

> - Adjacency between R1 and R2 will progress to FULL state (because all

> OSPFv2 messages will be sent with AllSPFRouters multicast IPv4

> address)

> - Unicast traffic sent by R1 to R2 (and vice versa) will be blackholed

> because ARP will not resolve addresses assigned to the corresponding interfaces.


> Instructions:

> -------------

> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please

> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected.

> When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change

> the status and edit the report, if necessary.


> --------------------------------------

> RFC5309 (draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-06)

> --------------------------------------

> Title               : Point-to-Point Operation over LAN in Link State Routing

> Protocols

> Publication Date    : October 2008

> Author(s)           : N. Shen, Ed., A. Zinin, Ed.

> Category            : INFORMATIONAL

> Source              : IS-IS for IP Internets

> Area                : Routing

> Stream              : IETF

> Verifying Party     : IESG


> _______________________________________________

> Isis-wg mailing list




This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.