IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-03.txt

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 12 April 2011 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE49DE0676 for <ospf@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ziw0fAYIdbVO for <ospf@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49814E0663 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p3C38pAY017279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:08:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p3C38nwL021075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:38:50 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:38:49 +0530
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "curtis@occnc.com" <curtis@occnc.com>, Abhay Roy <akr@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:38:47 +0530
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-03.txt
Thread-Index: Acv4u1pkZIwQl4A3QZ68PORM3FCnGwAAv5Pg
Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFD037ADA@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: Your message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:19:10 PDT." <4DA329FE.4050108@cisco.com> <201104120242.p3C2gqQQ022480@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
In-Reply-To: <201104120242.p3C2gqQQ022480@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:08:58 -0000

Hi Curtis,

This draft aligns the OSPFv3 security mechanism with that of OSPFv2. Once this is done, any proposal or extension that works for OSPFv2 will work for OSPFv3 as well. 

If for example, we decide to go via the nonce and session ID mechanism or the KARP boot count, then that mechanism will work for OSPFv3 also.

So, this really is orthogonal to the work that's being carried out in KARP/OSPF WGs. Once that gets frozen it will be applicable to OSPFv3 as well. However, that can happen only once we have this piece in.

Cheers, Manav

> It is weak with only the 32 bit sequence number.  That said, if there
> is concensus for moving forward as-is I have no objection.  It is a
> step in the right direction, though IMHO it is too small a step in the
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email