Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 29 June 2016 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 0CF5412D590; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hXo7CUVegcyA; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2E7012D917; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-a7-57744bbb82fc
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B6.03.09012.BBB44775; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:29:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:13:11 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR0bgfEaJcZakKeU+i75Ki6x5aYw==
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:13:11 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D47EE6@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <20160629034122.22589.47318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D3993A03.67315%acee@cisco.com> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D46C7B@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <D399988F.674B0%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonXHe3d0m4wYctGhaT385jtmg+e4bJ YsaficwW38/+Z7RouXeP3aL12SomBzaPKb83snrsnHWX3WPJkp9MAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJ XBlTtmxgLVhoWXF6/knWBsa/ul2MnBwSAiYSJ/dtZoWwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJRRYtqstSwQ znJGiUlr7rOBVLEBdWzY+ZkJxBYRcJbYsfgaWBGzwBNGiSMX7jOCJIQF8iWWv1sBVVQgcefb VXYIW09izcUOsBoWAVWJ5dPmgK3mFfCVeDl3PxPEtpOMEicaDrOAJBiBbvp+ag3YIGYBcYlb T+YzQdwqILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf1A/KEnMeX2NGaLeQOL9uflQtrbEsoWvmSGWCUqcnPmEZQKj 6CwkY2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDlKiwtyctONDDYxAqPomASb7g7G+9M9DzEKcDAq8fAu4CkJ F2JNLCuuzD3EKMHBrCTCGxkKFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM4r9kgxXEggPbEkNTs1 tSC1CCbLxMEp1cBYmv36ca5kR7T5nX+59Y2h4nVKmhpbW30zPjz6+s31OvfcO3cur/G2b5i3 Ru1AfiNb6LS5PIVHPKYK3LpybCXzW4fVCvVTU8WuvykOdHXaWban9HareGHOw9e/3Rjvn3s3 zffialmZawdezj55IvXJ6vQW2cZbB3Y76Yn/ecvPnbF2+f7jIffZlViKMxINtZiLihMB+kFe B54CAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/v8F8WhCFA32C-BZyvshm0o6zAhE>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, "wenhu.lu@gmail.com" <wenhu.lu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with DISCUSS and 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: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:13:21 -0000
Thanks Acee. Looks good to me. I have cleared. Regards Suresh On 06/29/2016 03:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > We’ve updated the draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 6/29/16, 11:10 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Acee, >> Thanks for the quick turanround. All your proposed changes look good >> to >> me. I will clear as soon as a new version posts. We can probably discuss >> the >> "Updates:" issue on the telechat but I do not have strong feelings about >> this >> one way or another. >> >> Cheers >> Suresh >> >> On 06/29/2016 09:49 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>> Hi Suresh, >>> >>> On 6/28/16, 11:41 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: Discuss >>>> >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> DISCUSS: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> I do think this is a good mechanism to transition from IPv4-only OSPFv2 >>>> to dual-stack capable OSPFv3 and I intend to switch to a Yes once my >>>> discuss points are addressed. >>>> >>>> * The calculation for the checksum field in the OSPFv3 packet is not >>>> specified in this document. The RFC5340 checksum calculation uses the >>>> IPv6 pseudo-header mechanism for upper layer checksums as specified in >>>> Section 8.1 of RFC2460. Since that obviously won't work here (as there >>>> are no source and dest IPv6 addresses) some different mechanism needs >>>> to >>>> be specified here. >>> >>> Agreed. We will add this - not sure how we missed it. Many IPv4 >>> protocols >>> (including OSPFv2 as described in RFC 2328) exclude the pseudo-header >>> from >>> the standard checksum calculation. Since we have it in OSPFv3 over IPv6 >>> with the RFC 2460 pseudo header, I feel we should retain it here lest we >>> open up OSPFv3 to a documented OSPFv3 vulnerably when authentication is >>> not used. >>> >>> I propose we just use a variant of the UDP pseudo header as described in >>> RFC 768. >>> >>> For IPv4 transport, the pseudo-header used in the checksum calculation >>> will >>> contain the IPv4 source and destination addresses, the OSPFv3 protocol >>> ID, >>> and the OSPFv3 length from the OSPFv3 header (Appendix A.3.1 [RFC5340]). >>> The format is similar to the UDP pseudo-header as described in [RFC768]. >>> >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Source Address | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Destination Address | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | 0 | Protocol (89) | OSPFv3 Packet Length | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> * (based on the above) Why doesn't this document update RFC5340? >>> >>> It could. However, RFC 5340 solely describes OSPFv3 with IPv6 transport. >>> Whether or not an enhancement that doesn’t change an existing >>> specification but augments it has always been a debate. We usually err >>> on >>> the side of updating. What is the IESG take on this? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> I do have one question that I am curious about. Can this mechanism be >>>> run >>>> alongside OSPFv2 on the same router? If so, how does the demultiplexing >>>> take place to dispatch the packet to either the OSPFv2 or the >>>> OSPFv3-over-IPv4 implementation (as the endpoints are potentially the >>>> same and the IP proto number 89 is usually dispatched to OSPFv2)? Does >>>> it >>>> require inserting some sort of shim in the OSPFv2 implementation to >>>> further dispatch on the version number octet? >>> >>> No shim is necessary since both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 will check the version >>> number in the first octet of the OSPF(v3) packet header. Commercial >>> implementations normally would normally drop the packet before this >>> stage >>> unless one has both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 running on the same interface. >>> However, I think this should be discussed in a “Management >>> Considerations” >>> section. >>> >>> 5.0 Management Considerations >>> >>> 5.1 Coexistence with OSPFv2 >>> >>> Since OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 over IPv4 as described herein use >>> exactly the same protocol and IPv4 addresses, OSPFv2 packets may be >>> delivered to the OSPFv3 process and vice versa. When this occurs, the >>> mismatched protocol packets will be dropped due to validation of the >>> version in the first octet of the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol header. Note >>> that this will not prevent the packets from being delivered to the >>> correct protocol process as standard socket implementations will >>> deliver a copy to each socket matching the selectors. >>> >>> Implementations of OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport SHOULD implement >>> separate counters for a protocol mismatch and SHOULD provide >>> means to suppress the ospfIfRxBadPacket and ospfVirtIfRxBadPacket >>> SNMP notifications as described in [RFC4750] and the >>> ospfv3IfRxBadPacket and ospv3VirtIfRxBadPacket SNMP notifications >>> as described in [RFC5643] when an OSPFv2 packet is received by >>> the OSPFv3 process or vice versa. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Acee Lindem (acee)
- [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-os… Suresh Krishnan