Re: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-auth-04.txt

Vishwas Manral <Vishwas@SINETT.COM> Tue, 06 July 2004 05:39 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08352 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <>; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 1:39:19 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 24640166 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:39:18 -0400
Received: from by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:39:18 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-auth-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcRjGz1cY8AME/dKRoC9SjwIOmM8jwAAOqDg
Message-ID: <BB6D74C75CC76A419B6D6FA7C38317B22E8117@sinett-sbs.SiNett.LAN>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:41:54 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Vishwas Manral <Vishwas@SINETT.COM>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-auth-04.txt
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Abhay,

Good point, didnt know the draft was actually out(actually I think Sina/Michael actually started working on it togather a long long while back before the idea was dropped). Just curious would we still use IPSec or would we use the current authentication mechanism?

To add further, we intend to add a draft to allow out of order sequence of packets with authentication enabled like in IPSec for OSPFv2 too. (IP does not guarentee inorder dilevery anyway/besides we can allow for packet prioritization)


-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM]On Behalf Of Abhay
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-auth-04.txt

On 07/05/04-0500 at 2:19pm, Mukesh.Gupta@NOKIA.COM writes:

> Hi Vishwas,
> Thanks for the comments.  Please see my comments inline..
> > 1. I am not sure we should have a statement which says OSPFv3
> > is only for IPv6.
> > "As OSPFv2 is only for IPv4 and OSPFv3 is only for IPv6,
> > the distinction between the packets can be easily made by
> > IP version. "
> Do you have a replacement statement that you would prefer ?
> As the IP protocol type value for OSPF and OSPFv3 is same,
> we have to depend upon the IP version to separate OSPF and
> OSPFv3 packets.

Just FYI, we can run OSPFv3 using IPv4 transport (see section 9 of
draft-mirtorabi-ospfv3-af-alt-01.txt). In which case the demux
will be based on OSPF protocol version.