IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sun, 26 June 2016 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 0A26412D15E; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Zt_ozZZJar_1; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F441288B8; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2452; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466939759; x=1468149359; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xky8UXPNapMK0HbgwRAfBo/C4uEb1KGTyLOqEN/fYrU=; b=Mkgyg0n3V//0MNpr5o/4TeeJKtUudypnXQJGxGphPqjYaZfXtJNhaKbg RRgOKMKJVyOkew2VPC3JvVZJH8NrpFQKpqnEJe1scB8zd+2jyUEm+kHSn AKGpDP/FIgo6j6Sk3G7qHWkI6o3EgUBQtSQG/ualoC/DghIoFZHM+D+GY M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BDAgAJuW9X/5ldJa1bgz5WfQa4FoIPgXsihXYCHIEFOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETQEBBCMRRRACAQgYAgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQWIMA63AY9/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBAYl0hBIRARyDAYJaAQSIFpBrAYYHiC+BaYRUiGePfgEeNoIFAxwXgTVuAYgYNn8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,530,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="117350183"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jun 2016 11:15:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5QBFvHE012223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:15:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:15:57 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:15:57 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRz1nT/JvkkCJOlk+RsysO8AvNHJ/7hHGAgAAVDgA=
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:15:57 +0000
Message-ID: <D3953174.66305%acee@cisco.com>
References: <20160626032124.17217.72089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <35576982-1e65-9cc8-f39a-86b1a882f285@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <35576982-1e65-9cc8-f39a-86b1a882f285@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <392FB89929854449AE61ADA1B4A87AAE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/7YtSDsCU1knBoNF-xPl_cpORTCw>
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] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with 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: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:16:01 -0000


On 6/26/16, 2:00 AM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

>On 6/25/16 8:21 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: No Objection
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> This was nice work.
>> 
>> I did have one question - I don't think it would be a likely problem,
>>but
>> is it worth pointing out that you're taking OSPFv3 payloads that might
>> have been sized for IPv6, and encapsulating them as IPv4 payloads that
>> might have a smaller MTU?
>
>Given that these devices have a common link mtu (otherwise they would
>have trouble forming adjcency over the broadcast domain) the opfv3
>payload will always be sized for the v6 network which means the ipv4
>variant of the packet packet will always be 20 bytes smaller due to the
>ipv6 header being 20 bytes larger then the v4 one..

Agreed. Additionally, if necessary, OSPFv3 can avail IP fragmentation and
reassembly. 

Thanks,
Acee 
>
>> If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I
>> needed to ask :-)
>>
>> 
>
>

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email