[manet] FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8175 (6472)

["Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <[e-mail]>]

Henning Rogge says:


Hi Ronald,



I just checked my OLSR-DLEP implementation...



I first look for an IPv6 connection point, then (if I get none) for an IPv4 connection point... and only after both of them don't exist I just take the remote-IP (source IP) of the UDP packet arriving at the router to establish a DLEP session.



So my implementation would be okay if the IP-source of the UDP Source-IP would be something "other" than the TCP-Connection point as long as a "connection point" is delivered...



if we demand that the source-IP is the right one, we don't need the connection points anymore, right?



Henning



________________________________
Von: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Gesendet: Montag, 10. Mai 2021 20:21
An: Rogge, Henning
Betreff: FW: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8175 (6472)

Hi Henning,

Please see Alvaro's question below. What does _your_ implementation (old/new) do? Any comment on Alvaro's proposed text correction versus the text proposed by Rick?

Thanks,
Ronald

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: maandag 10 mei 2021 20:01
To: Rick Taylor <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8175 (6472)

Ping!


On March 29, 2021 at 2:04:35 PM, Alvaro Retana ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
[- Rick's additional address, RFC Editor, other ADs.]


On March 10, 2021 at 11:05:03 AM, Rick Taylor wrote:


Hi!

I'm processing this report...but I have a question.  What do current implementations do?  See move below.


...
> > Section: 12.4, para 2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > A Peer Offer Signal MUST be encoded within a UDP packet. The IP source
> > and destination fields in the packet MUST be set by swapping the values
> > received in the Peer Discovery Signal. The Peer Offer Signal completes the
> > discovery process; see Section 7.1.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > A Peer Offer Signal MUST be encoded within a UDP packet. If the Modem is
> > not including IPv4 and IPv6 Connection Point Data Items in the Peer Offer
> > Signal, then the IP source field in the packet MUST be set to the unicast
> > address the router must use when connecting the DLEP TCP session,
> > otherwise any valid local address MUST be used. The IP destination field
> > in the packet MUST be set to the IP source field value received in the
> > Peer Discovery Signal. The Peer Offer Signal completes the discovery
> > process; see Section 7.1.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The original text will not result in a valid unicast IP packet.


The new text is this:

   If the Modem is not including IPv4 and IPv6 Connection Point Data Items in
   the Peer Offer Signal, then the IP source field in the packet MUST be set
   to the unicast address the router must use when connecting the DLEP TCP
   session, otherwise any valid local address MUST be used.

I am having an issue with the double MUST.  Regardless of whether a Connection Point Data Item is present, why wouldn't it be required (or at least recommended) to always use the TCP-related IP address?

Proposal (to replace the new text)>
   The source IP address SHOULD be the address the peer should use when
   connecting the DLEP TCP session.  If a Connection Point Data Item is
   included, any valid local address MAY be used instead.


??

Thanks!

Alvaro.

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.