Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 29 June 2016 15:10 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF25812DEF0; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xll0_yVhvnvm; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A97E12D08F; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-95-5773da903709
Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CB.57.09012.09AD3775; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:26:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:10:17 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR0bgfEaJcZakKeU+i75Ki6x5aYw==
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:10:16 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D46C7B@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <20160629034122.22589.47318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D3993A03.67315%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonQXfireJwgwcn+Cwmv53HbNF89gyT xYw/E5ktvp/9z2jRcu8eu0Xrs1VMDmweU35vZPXYOesuu8eSJT+ZApijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0S uDKmfz3MUvDZqOLNjW7mBsYrGl2MnBwSAiYSBz93sELYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMooMXnScnYI ZzmjxK5ld9lAqtiAOjbs/MwEYosIOEvsWHyNBcRmFnjCKHFzsg6ILSyQL7H83QqomgKJO9+u skPYehJrLnYwgtgsAqoST3f9AovzCvhKTGv5w9zFyAG0LFli5y0RkDAj0EHfT61hghgvLnHr yXwmiEMFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8D+oBJYk5r68xQ9QbSLw/Nx/K1pZYtvA1M8QqQYmTM5+wTGAU nYVk7CwkLbOQtMxC0rKAkWUVI0dpcUFObrqRwSZGYPwck2DT3cF4f7rnIUYBDkYlHl6F3UXh QqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4fZ8UhwvxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnFXukGC4kkJ5Ykpqd mlqQWgSTZeLglGpgVHvHdts6Sks2ZHGaI7PDmf663pPLX3RYW88WtzeZf92F+WvVuavvA9in lAg95Y+8uDCs8P2qDDm+5RdXsa5T/MW5+Cf7c9MZi3a9vpv0a7dFHtNjd3XGz5V8ttHBXvO+ MHzT03Q2v3F5w9qXh/2blunO5T/G35up5srg4nBj16YNwrxp5wMMlViKMxINtZiLihMBBwQC b5sCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/3fx8PQNedjNAFkm-c34pD_Mjevo>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, "wenhu.lu@gmail.com" <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:10:22 -0000
Hi Acee, Thanks for the quick turanround. All your proposed changes look good to me. I will clear as soon as a new version posts. We can probably discuss the "Updates:" issue on the telechat but I do not have strong feelings about this one way or another. Cheers Suresh On 06/29/2016 09:49 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > On 6/28/16, 11:41 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> > wrote: > >> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I do think this is a good mechanism to transition from IPv4-only OSPFv2 >> to dual-stack capable OSPFv3 and I intend to switch to a Yes once my >> discuss points are addressed. >> >> * The calculation for the checksum field in the OSPFv3 packet is not >> specified in this document. The RFC5340 checksum calculation uses the >> IPv6 pseudo-header mechanism for upper layer checksums as specified in >> Section 8.1 of RFC2460. Since that obviously won't work here (as there >> are no source and dest IPv6 addresses) some different mechanism needs to >> be specified here. > > Agreed. We will add this - not sure how we missed it. Many IPv4 protocols > (including OSPFv2 as described in RFC 2328) exclude the pseudo-header from > the standard checksum calculation. Since we have it in OSPFv3 over IPv6 > with the RFC 2460 pseudo header, I feel we should retain it here lest we > open up OSPFv3 to a documented OSPFv3 vulnerably when authentication is > not used. > > I propose we just use a variant of the UDP pseudo header as described in > RFC 768. > > For IPv4 transport, the pseudo-header used in the checksum calculation > will > contain the IPv4 source and destination addresses, the OSPFv3 protocol ID, > and the OSPFv3 length from the OSPFv3 header (Appendix A.3.1 [RFC5340]). > The format is similar to the UDP pseudo-header as described in [RFC768]. > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Source Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Destination Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | 0 | Protocol (89) | OSPFv3 Packet Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > >> * (based on the above) Why doesn't this document update RFC5340? > > It could. However, RFC 5340 solely describes OSPFv3 with IPv6 transport. > Whether or not an enhancement that doesn’t change an existing > specification but augments it has always been a debate. We usually err on > the side of updating. What is the IESG take on this? > > >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I do have one question that I am curious about. Can this mechanism be run >> alongside OSPFv2 on the same router? If so, how does the demultiplexing >> take place to dispatch the packet to either the OSPFv2 or the >> OSPFv3-over-IPv4 implementation (as the endpoints are potentially the >> same and the IP proto number 89 is usually dispatched to OSPFv2)? Does it >> require inserting some sort of shim in the OSPFv2 implementation to >> further dispatch on the version number octet? > > No shim is necessary since both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 will check the version > number in the first octet of the OSPF(v3) packet header. Commercial > implementations normally would normally drop the packet before this stage > unless one has both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 running on the same interface. > However, I think this should be discussed in a “Management Considerations” > section. > > 5.0 Management Considerations > > 5.1 Coexistence with OSPFv2 > > Since OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 over IPv4 as described herein use > exactly the same protocol and IPv4 addresses, OSPFv2 packets may be > delivered to the OSPFv3 process and vice versa. When this occurs, the > mismatched protocol packets will be dropped due to validation of the > version in the first octet of the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol header. Note > that this will not prevent the packets from being delivered to the > correct protocol process as standard socket implementations will > deliver a copy to each socket matching the selectors. > > Implementations of OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport SHOULD implement > separate counters for a protocol mismatch and SHOULD provide > means to suppress the ospfIfRxBadPacket and ospfVirtIfRxBadPacket > SNMP notifications as described in [RFC4750] and the > ospfv3IfRxBadPacket and ospv3VirtIfRxBadPacket SNMP notifications > as described in [RFC5643] when an OSPFv2 packet is received by > the OSPFv3 process or vice versa. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Acee Lindem (acee)
- [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-os… Suresh Krishnan