IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 26 June 2016 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 85CD912B008; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 d6m4if61O64l; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99B3812B068; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b72so135125324ywa.3; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=2tMEeE1eEVdZ9uBfvcJtcaTGcsg6mQsauWomZw/NUdY=; b=j0BPIvV1/skIjCDNkB33tv+zUXOM0804eEinNDiMKZiQ0L7CB3o5kThgk1V5etPQZF zBL+6S44ErlzRdF8uB6VxXfJIX6nQnBeUNWBDpQSnMWQHcN77ofOAdMPGP11mSrUL/JN Uoj+Np8n7Ac1nph+C97/hvM7bZWB6w9ahWq/sgZE5mI1PgUnbPh7aSmm26qTQFC/zV+B bePsS2wGW4IbqG48F4W+sNhCNTveh6j8RfvhFFP2mx45/XQ6rhyTW8dC7DWEGFZldVkg ImgskbdMl6GqVSxxrLIGWDEtK+8yPasojuSJFh3KrY9TxatV66ZoF7xw7BOlLD3YV6eE JaPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=2tMEeE1eEVdZ9uBfvcJtcaTGcsg6mQsauWomZw/NUdY=; b=OKEWKNs5hyz5AP/ztjemvZNLP4eSgcR3BtYdEt7eREsm6PD3Q+J2soFlrNsoPuJxQ5 5LZFRKw9S8/9ssi0+gb0NZ8sAAEgS2vwoTFRUNtUdsPJwnZ6ZXj39+52fEt7VAK+v3T6 eCnVBOAwlgPPpbKQUNG87t6zXCLz5vZawt1/MZO/uGUdFG+jEKU1sVirWwfokRSgfMp7 jYEUMkyMqKN9oiTRc6KRcY5N9WFaZ8ygaoBkNudnRFf+6hS9Lghq73e65frp20gE7j65 AFk/qUcB4dm53ItTH43jojfMCXBwjGmV5c7xDYCU4fSQ7AjtXikUQRYieb+tbmr12Y7c ynPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJyY9ESrKTKenotrp3zxFfhcGOXDik25v1jnIvNSf78A6nPcgfpE1cGMIxBWuTOhzjeMhLJa/T+IvZiJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.41.205 with SMTP id p196mr8251824ywp.64.1466940163829; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.101.84 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.101.84 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D3953174.66305%acee@cisco.com>
References: <20160626032124.17217.72089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <35576982-1e65-9cc8-f39a-86b1a882f285@bogus.com> <D3953174.66305%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:22:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fe3MkQmA5e0cybS9UFMUnpQ04+52bRs1uNGZVAgyqiGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114146125f39a405362c9ffe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/mwA5pwcMqS1oGTp3v1o-m0XPUPA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>, "wenhu.lu@gmail.com" <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
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 11:22:47 -0000

Hi, Joel and Acee,

On Jun 26, 2016 06:15, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 for the quick responses!

The authors might consider making that assumption explicit, but this was a
comment, not a Discuss, so just do the right thing, whatever that is :-)

Spencer

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email