[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE2312D0B3 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cDFeAFeYX09y for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (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 DA2B612D150 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id p34so26235992qgp.1 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yHfDWgYaSBF0xOiqhJpuXAJQgbeTte+y3P/p5c66oFE=; b=oRzhuDaIatGCxEbbC4aLNSdmrPepUMS17A/m0x0LSS4cdgIneeHn2DWzAoDl0kcTsF gjKvJxL0/Wchz8QZHeFthav3IB1M7ymW5kOrSB3DbZsODFtVv0ewEN+B/zH+saUXUeZ+ 3Anj0HRjCKMHd7QMjGp8d93KcUuzSIP4ohbMGjkKxYgl+6I0w4h4RREKbQ8UqrYI18re cv3ko/T/ll3c3kluzQr9kKZFPlmJhDbCYNouR3HvNpmxzI9SHfC5NuHmQ83danGScwOe bBig4Otxlrgykeu48pHg76KHAF9U0Q47SCLSSE83Xq63F2vSbqvOHalNRpHiKTb3ttIu tqGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yHfDWgYaSBF0xOiqhJpuXAJQgbeTte+y3P/p5c66oFE=; b=hvDdKuLuEwu7dlZJEUP6QX1/36T6AWGswRn+z6LuCiHE0+GoX743SH1kSP6+my57ld LwIH6zkx/TeXPJnXKmcXk3IQTp9IdYgsivJa3RV4kiRMhd7jlpUcul+LCiv/29IbIB5t rFfBF3itHD9AXFXGVZZsvtajCSHt0Tc10dXsi8suKwGTLL6VQu6OhpdfH4qVtq1mn3Tx IpPViCYDh88IHla0dzZOsyp6GhQRfM5bBsBR0GkiUJxGteeqP/A7h78JyzLC0Ll0/R2D 7RVZFeeoi5PQsqaOmMUmgjBLtjVJk0vjo5HUEO99bKdDtskv1eI+Q/ERfqIphqcSeHXx NSXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK1kYhpe+BoC9uwjc7Z/vdfgS3UV6YkeekBpSXSFKhKWB1qJYqBaWSk7utpB1CTFPV2y+yo/At12voZPQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j52mr11459042qgf.90.1465502278017; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:57:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rf0JHe=4TZVcOfdBFA13WpRWHpXF5=AHCysyKzXTiX-WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a6860b2e9010534ddd6df"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/rK06qiOtM129DA0JRRg1MKv8dLM>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:58:00 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review
of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07.
First, I would like to thank the authors for their work on this document.
It looks like
very useful technology.

I have a few minor questions below.  I will put this into IETF Last Call as
well while
waiting for the authors to update the draft ASAP.   That gives a chance of
making it
on to the June 30 telechat if the authors are responsive.


1) Sec 3.1:  "If this is supported, the IPv4 data plane MUST resolve
     the layer-2 address using Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) on
     multi-access networks and point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309] for
     direct next-hops on different IPv4 subnets."

     I believe it is the IPv4 (i.e. layer-3) address to be resolved with
ARP - not the
     layer-2 address.

2) Sec 3.3: "If IPv4 transport, as specified herein, is used for IPv6
     families, virtual links cannot be
     supported. Hence, it is RECOMMENDED to use the IP transport
     matching the address family in OSPF routing domains requiring
     virtual links."

     From this section, I was expecting that "cannot" would be a "can".  Did
     I miss something?  Can you clarify further?

3) Sec 1: 2nd to last paragraph: "In situations where the IPv6 deployment
is a
   proper superset of the IPv4 deployment, it is expected that OSPFv3
   would be transported over IPv6."

   I believe the "proper" should be removed.   If the IPv6 deployment is
exactly the same
   as the IPv4 deployment, then it is expected that OSPFv3 would be
transported over
   IPv6.     As it is,how the case of equal deployment is handled is