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

Vishwas Manral <Vishwas@SINETT.COM> Sat, 10 July 2004 07:57 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28337 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 3:57:28 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 25301497 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:57:27 -0400
Received: from by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:57:27 -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: AcRl363Ikt3m+vnXTPmK9q1swyNltgAcqkbw
Message-ID: <BB6D74C75CC76A419B6D6FA7C38317B22E829D@sinett-sbs.SiNett.LAN>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:00:11 -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 Suresh,

I was thinking the following assumptions would hold good: -

1. We either run OSPFv3 for IPv4 or OSPFv2 for IPv4 not both.
2. While configuring the SA(we dont use IKE), both ends agree to the protocol they are using.

Wouldn't it help in that case? I think the AF draft should state the limitation instead.

Suresh, also if the link is assumed to be point-to-point would we still restrict to the use of static configuration and not IKE.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM]On Behalf Of Suresh
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-auth-04.txt

Hi Abhay/Vishwas,

comments inline,

-suresh (Nagavenkata Suresh Melam)

>> 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.

IPsec selectors are not usually any deeper than protocol field of
IP header and port numbers of UDP/TCP transport protocol. Thus, OSPF
protocol version cannot be one of the selector.

If OSPFv3 runs on IPv4 transport, there wouldn't be any way
to distinguish OSPFv3 packets from OSPFv2 packets, as both of them
use same protocol value. Thus IPsec security, as mentioned in
"Security considerations" section of RFC2740 and ospfv3-auth draft,
cannot be provided to these packets. Perhaps this should be mentioned
in the "Security Considerations" section of ospfv3-af-alt draft.