Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trai

Hi Manav/ Mike,

Though it is ok to have another draft invalidate this one after some
time. It would be a challenge to get implementations to change as fast (if
at all).

In my view if the current solution is deemed incomplete, we can correct the
current solution.

Thanks,
Vishwas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Michael Barnes <michael_barnes@usa.net>wrote:

> Hello Manav,
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:05:36 PM PDT
> From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
> To: Michael Barnes <michael_barnes@usa.net>,        "curtis@occnc.com"
> <curtis@occnc.com>, Abhay Roy <akr@cisco.com>Cc: "ospf@ietf.org"
> <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for
> OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trai
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > > > right direction and would not have to be revisited quite as soon if
> > > > something more robust were proposed.
> > > >
> > > > Bottom line.  Falls short of what I'd like to see but no objection.
> > > >
> > > > Curtis
> > >
> > > I agree with Curis. I'd really like to see the first version
> > > of this spec at
> > > least have the extended sequence number as is being discussed for v2.
> >
> > I disagree that AT should have a 64 bit sequence space in the base
> specification primarily because we are not yet sure if the KARP boot count
> approach is what the WG will finally converge on (in which case we would
> need
> an extended sequence space). Also note that the AT provides an "Auth Type"
> field which can be assigned a new value (similar to how it will be done for
> OSPFv2) once we decide to move to a different scheme. The same standard
> that
> extends the OSPFv2 sequence space can also do it for OSPFv3 AT block -
> really
> hardly an overhead.
> >
> > Also note that you could consider this proposal as just bringing OSPFv3
> at
> par with OSPFv2. Once this is done, any proposal that extends OSPFv2 will
> natively work for OSPFv3 as well.
>
> So you are saying that this flaw is okay with you? I'd rather hold off on
> pushing this forward until this flaw is fixed. And I think waiting to see
> what
> happens in KARP might be a good idea.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>