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

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 13:17 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 E98C33A1652 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:17:48 -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 V-fhEHkcja0P for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:17:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (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 E9B253A164E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id r24so3030656lfm.8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 05:17:46 -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=7ticSnwdFXpEPWRauNLbh8MDZsrUdfbKHU23Ah2YVOs=; b=W5+HEtc6K7aSPa4gu5ncGrJ6PoPUDYO58evvfWBMK96au29y/Qhw7yeddqxJ4cF5EJ PIquhPogP7udqWEQNVMrM1UJcVk5lQTKQecKEuzQzR4nm081petoz3rtBAz/IWM0fMhj XBdr8QTCHeh3ALlKZ86FM2vkq19FiCHlCNahIISSySUd9L9VGqeFVMsE8srg6g5WXBc3 szaMFKj5NNMiLcHm9wwdqfpVksd8jLTLtt3wWvFszUBXxCejw2a4ByDPEtze76PxTmtk d7TbVwSB2P/18OlXTzwpbu3XLXrRO/OLAmnN60EVULB9AKX68GXYYsv5h9nhnOAHbpbK tv5A==
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=7ticSnwdFXpEPWRauNLbh8MDZsrUdfbKHU23Ah2YVOs=; b=M7xWtyttwrbw2m6l85xo714+xKKgFlEUjjyHflwwPowJRipm6KN1fWs16ohPcHI00r WagMtOeGKBjpOk5fn/61tkz2TRDsw4tMbWSozNDjMUmFeyfTAEOuqMkcp5N8NYcSUY9e kOT+6risFFL+JZ8WKPFY1RTlq9dcdgGB5Hfr+AoLVkN1zv14XuHDTxVIhe8SYypSz3xB uHJDGj9q5HMLBope0cWLR7S75t/agXLoGhOAY119nVJq0gcv02XG/9zvois81ZsXWBF+ m5zQ1UgzVDvxq3l2xLGMM9w6AqHd3NwgDfAjl83WV8qVq/GOjlZjm8tnDo70qwV9pz14 XvCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Es6bhiZcnLo6qvF+PctAJLRFgMpqZ637Rb9CGEwx8PX9rORHu aae0c0vg/qEJKTaOLWB31vyDI4GHLUCjswZOpO4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxxgJ47DddGvUQpoa1RCHSa7/audS0sErDxqdMNVHKkrfYuD26Q4f0n6yZ/oH/T/WO9a16cx6V691mI68b3gh8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:5f5d:: with SMTP id a29mr938575lfj.212.1607519865072; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 05:17:45 -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>
In-Reply-To: <44447C51-58FA-4756-92A0-BD0DBC26E44D@cisco.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:47:33 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8wNP4ip==2P9GGNc2H68GKQB38ZQi+bG_4xF-uuR8b4EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Tulasi Rami Reddy N <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086f09405b607e207"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/hSnm1iuVce63D2FAQFAi0cmiwe8>
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 13:17:49 -0000

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
>