Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416D43A167B for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:51:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 H3UeMAMnHBea for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8593A15E9 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id y22so2391410ljn.9 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 05:51:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o/zlpLZtG94xkrQUiI5cRKW1hGFOpZR6yNR5g4jtT18=; b=RSsMPdVImRhrbhLB+Ztw0c5oHOIa+xqhp1jRgbc6gdhdDc7S3zDGi0Z2p7FP0MYGTn JLvGlc8Vz/O8vOzggjTm0U+zTmO5QSmj5Vj/mnJSIp2GIZOas/aFvLb/SZLnKAkfCMZw Qp8yALhVzKoU7527tw+Y2Y67j+IACM0CfSJ8tW0p74xPzeRcwaRkwpTabY9tciP8WRHG D4nptoVyDZgeCxUbGYv+epiMDAU2Vg2kvi4wO5pltR155gcyqN94nSnTIgEwEc9QRvS1 gVO7M23IHNpBr4WVpVsKY2K37LWdmGJ0JOShjxGupoNPato3RudTcjc3GFcQtwicV56u Tl1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o/zlpLZtG94xkrQUiI5cRKW1hGFOpZR6yNR5g4jtT18=; b=jyzs4lvj8OhdlxNhnuJzmw45DGdj4vSLgb4Hu61o7nmQQt3RyZLTUCeXsisb8Ahdhy d1le3EeXhahf2cWEEWt412nwmkAytbYkoCS7ev6tcUsgoIF4RjKhcJiUHoKn64XBiqM4 GQGODIxDfz7QzxOcHb1OxTtYptRs8NF64lS3WG6d4kx+LLDPF7Es6XQ4ejeYsKjBiXco cNuI1z6dNTaH1Av4qBl4KO6JajPutpXDOhI+J0iyG/w0tX4NCLjHOa/arxolWC8OxATY AJnHUGr0z6NxKS1qD9mTeU50fSjCMLwXNjvF7ngnr08dTK7EVqZHTkuVdGFTUqSowXJg r0vQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pakQpC6yEnxKNhBLLv1DEk2Kxdnk5Nv2RFmkuCPxMWa2+Yx6y 4oR6ns/XAZYDPp2FCFHXLeKG9Y0l0DPjqJtV4dQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwU1EFhdrLbA+bcBhx8QXZhnJM38bLlqLv3RELPnSRr28tN0az9HdNosXs+/c/KBvzUOUNNEMHi3j9gsBMarKc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:10d:: with SMTP id a13mr1207225ljb.25.1607521876004; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 05:51:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJePrfdqbZ0anJgM_aMwArYr3Qm0YkoraTHMOV4XaqyZQ0+BcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJePrfd15wLm1pW+sgHwV+JbA8Yq2hQ34B4jGzhTYJFBRbopzQ@mail.gmail.com> <44447C51-58FA-4756-92A0-BD0DBC26E44D@cisco.com> <CAKz0y8wNP4ip==2P9GGNc2H68GKQB38ZQi+bG_4xF-uuR8b4EQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F281788-1B38-48FF-B8C0-0348DA388571@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0F281788-1B38-48FF-B8C0-0348DA388571@cisco.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:21:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8wFjFnxu3uBpO8HLfNis9M+qPQGUkTYEKMVL6Kmcjw+sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Tulasi Rami Reddy N <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000063536305b6085ac2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/I5qRvYk7ByP3WsabyWt-FljGqQo>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 13:51:20 -0000

Hi Acee,

We aren't generating any trap today for the subnet mismatch case. We wanted
to get some feedback on what would be an appropriate trap to generate from
a usability standpoint, if we want to generate one..

Regards,
Muthu

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:09 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Muthu,
>
> There isn’t a specific case for this specific error so I wouldn’t reuse
> the any of the specific ones with the trap. Like I said, some
> implementations don’t generate any OSPF MIB trap for this case. What are
> you doing today?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
> muthu.arul@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 8:18 AM
> *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>rg>, Tulasi Rami Reddy N <
> tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> This is a configuration error, right? Wouldn't ospfIfConfigError trap be
> more appropriate? There is no good error code for this case
> in ospfConfigErrorType, though. Perhaps, RFC4750 could have reserved some
> error codes for future definitions?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:16 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tulasi,
>
> You definitely shouldn’t generate the netMaskMismatch trap as this is for
> mask mismatch detection on hello packets. You could generate the
> ospfIfRxBadPacket but many do not for this case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Tulasi Rami Reddy N <
> tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:11 AM
> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
>
>
>
> [ Sorry, My previous mail was truncated]
>
> Hi ,
>
>
>
> OSPFv2 adjacency will be formed on a numbered LAN only below both
> conditions are met:
>
>            1. Common IP subnet
>
>            2. Matching network mask.
>
> From the OSPFv2 MIB, there is only one error defined.
>
>
>
>      ospfConfigErrorType OBJECT-TYPE
>           SYNTAX       INTEGER {
>
>                           *netMaskMismatch (7),*
>            }
>
>
>
> I believe this is for the case 2 (when mask is mismatched).
>
>
>
> Let's take below example:
>
>
>
>   RTA    (11.1.1.2/24)   --------     (10.1.1.1/24) RTB
>
>
>
> Here, src IP is not matching to the Rx interface IP subnet, then what is
> the error type to be set?
>
> Should this be considered as generic input processing error and
> only generate
>
> *ospfIfRxBadPacket *notification or *netMaskMismatch  *notification?
>
> Should we need a new type here?
>
>
>
> "
>
> The generic input processing of OSPF packets will
>
> have checked the validity of the IP header and the OSPF packet
>
> header."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tulasi.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:27 PM Tulasi Rami Reddy N <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
>
>
> OSPFv2 adjacency will be formed on a numbered LAN only when
>
>            1. Common IP subnet
>
> 2.matching network mask.
>
> From the
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> TUlasi.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>