Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia,
I agree with your suggestions - we will make update the draft before the tele chat.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Alia Atlas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:59 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Hi Acee,

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Alia,

Thanks for the review - you caught some rather subtle points.

thanks - this was a nice tractable draft to read in a short time.


From: OSPF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM
To: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.
First, I would like to thank the authors for their work on this document.  It looks like
very useful technology.

I have a few minor questions below.  I will put this into IETF Last Call as well while
waiting for the authors to update the draft ASAP.   That gives a chance of making it
on to the June 30 telechat if the authors are responsive.

Minor:

1) Sec 3.1:  "If this is supported, the IPv4 data plane MUST resolve
     the layer-2 address using Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) on
     multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
     direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets."

     I believe it is the IPv4 (i.e. layer-3) address to be resolved with ARP - not the
     layer-2 address.

Ok - this text comes from me and I was viewing resolution from the standpoint of the “to” address family rather than the “from” address family. I agree the “from” address family is probably a more common characterization.

Feel free to say "MUST resolve from the IPv4 address to the layer-2 address using ARP...." if you
want extreme clearness.




2) Sec 3.3: "If IPv4 transport, as specified herein, is used for IPv6 address
     families, virtual links cannot be
     supported. Hence, it is RECOMMENDED to use the IP transport
     matching the address family in OSPF routing domains requiring
     virtual links."

     From this section, I was expecting that "cannot" would be a "can".  Did
     I miss something?  Can you clarify further?

The draft doesn’t address virtual link support in deployments where the address-family doesn’t match the transport. Hence, the text is correct as written.

Ok - but the draft  just says
"Hence, it is RECOMMENDED to use the IP transport
     matching the address family in OSPF routing domains requiring
     virtual links."

Can you clean this up to be extremely clear?
With an IPv4 transport, IPv6 virtual links are not supported.
With an IPv4 transport, IPv4 virtual links are supported.

and vice versa.

I read the relaxation as applying to both IPv4 and IPv6; maybe I was reading too fast, but a few clarifying
words would probably help.

3) Sec 1: 2nd to last paragraph: "In situations where the IPv6 deployment is a
   proper superset of the IPv4 deployment, it is expected that OSPFv3
   would be transported over IPv6."

   I believe the "proper" should be removed.   If the IPv6 deployment is exactly the same
   as the IPv4 deployment, then it is expected that OSPFv3 would be transported over
   IPv6.     As it is,how the case of equal deployment is handled is unspecified.

I agree. We will remove “proper".

thanks,
Alia


Thanks,
Acee



Thanks,
Alia