[OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00
"Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2008 20:09 UTC
Return-path: <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI8O4-0003rL-Dp; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:09:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI8O3-0003po-KG for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:09:23 -0500
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.231]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI8O3-0007v6-34 for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:09:23 -0500
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s8so1476908wxc.31 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:09:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Kqh+t/+XgvkWQZ3+OKyQbOfBMemYXGXGz6BrumOl5/c=; b=wWmuedp+Mn+XZiaZyoO+mgJUnLjwGtGlXLHl0IDE4GhLXeaDXsuafF5lrdIcHGPiVaXOcEjr0yau+X7jgZqNweORurQHjqXA0IRYDqv7JPMysFkJc0jfqXgV1OCcH7Sfa77SbIZ90wkdVbgW5ZGvpPPiJqMt+zQCzt0svm4NmlM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WDWUcpfOlc03qEtHqDZ2lYCAvJPZC/0Ra930Tl6YLxKRA3i921o6VHKM/BAITcwaNvmb11WQ91ohW334QOF+SbZs/w0OWu+1HkBLkKuudhqsJrRiHXpoMUk+DT3ek0BC9/DgXcRdcduX2yVA4Vut2wxhSKFH3AQnJYmKLhoIoh4=
Received: by 10.142.108.14 with SMTP id g14mr706571wfc.52.1201205360546; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.102.19 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77ead0ec0801241209y41a123fbk46a2adf6620dbc4d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:09:20 -0800
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
In-Reply-To: <BA6F2C58-8016-4922-9826-29824F2784BF@redback.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <77ead0ec0801240949y123f577au9dc36b99694a506@mail.gmail.com> <FA8A6B7C-F299-4FFF-A633-E716626B7B45@redback.com> <77ead0ec0801241128rd8786a9qe5f5f1dd6aedc80f@mail.gmail.com> <BA6F2C58-8016-4922-9826-29824F2784BF@redback.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Acee, I agree. The behavior of what needs to be done if one supports instances and the other does not - retry without the instance field set or not have adjacencies at all in such a case. Thanks, Vishwas On Jan 24, 2008 11:43 AM, Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> wrote: > Hi Vishwas, > > On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote: > > > Hi Acee, > > > > Thanks a lot for the reply. The backward compatibility issue would > > come unless there would be the case that the draft would not use > > instance ID 0 (when working with a router not supporting the > > functionality - where it would be treated as no instance - rather than > > a particular instance). May be that could be clarified. > > > > I understand what you mean - but would using LLS (which is now a part > > of standards track now) be of any more help? > > LLS is only for hello and DD packets. This is required for all OSPF > packets. Also, I'd rather keep the solutions aligned with what we > have today with OSPFv3. Furthermore, if there are implementations > that gratuitously log authentication failures, there may be > implementations that do the same for unrecognized LLS TLVs. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > Thanks again, > > Vishwas > > > > On Jan 24, 2008 10:56 AM, Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> wrote: > >> Hi Vishwas, > >> > >> From a protocol standpoint, it is completely backward compatible. > >> OSPF > >> routers not supporting the draft but receiving a multicast OSPF > >> packet with > >> a non-zero instance ID will simply treat it as an unknown AuType > >> and fail > >> authentication. > >> > >> With this respect, RFC 2328 simply states: > >> > >> > >> 8.2. Receiving protocol packets > >> o > >> o > >> o > >> o The packet must be authenticated. The authentication > >> procedure is indicated by the setting of AuType (see > >> Appendix D). The authentication procedure may use one or > >> more Authentication keys, which can be configured on a per- > >> interface basis. The authentication procedure may also > >> verify the checksum field in the OSPF packet header (which, > >> when used, is set to the standard IP 16-bit one's complement > >> checksum of the OSPF packet's contents after excluding the > >> 64-bit authentication field). If the authentication > >> procedure fails, the packet should be discarded. > >> > >> > >> And: > >> > >> > >> D.5 Message verification > >> > >> When an OSPF packet has been received on an interface, it > >> must > >> be authenticated. The authentication procedure is > >> indicated by > >> the setting of Autype in the standard OSPF packet header, > >> which > >> matches the setting of Autype for the receiving OSPF > >> interface. > >> > >> If an OSPF protocol packet is accepted as authentic, > >> processing > >> of the packet continues as specified in Section 8.2. Packets > >> which fail authentication are discarded. > >> > >> Speaking as a draft author (not OSPF WG Co-chair): > >> > >> Unfortunately, some well-deployed implementations make a bigger > >> fuss than is > >> necessary when an authentication failure occurs. IMHO, now would > >> be a good > >> time to rectify this to lesses the impact should this draft be > >> accepted as a > >> standards track document. Of course, there are manual ways of > >> segregating > >> the multi-access networks to avoid down-level routers from receiving > >> multicast packets for non-zero instances. Perhaps, we should > >> discuss these > >> in the draft and dispense with the more radical discussions of > >> requesting > >> new multicast addresses or other IANA code points. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote: > >> > >> Hi Acee, > >> > >> I wanted to know if this draft was backward compatible with current > >> implementation. If its not, I was also eager to know, if we have a > >> way > >> for incremental deployment. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Vishwas > >> > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Vishwas Manral
- [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Vishwas Manral
- [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Vishwas Manral
- RE: [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Sina Mirtorabi
- [OSPF] Re: draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-00 Acee Lindem