Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
"Stephen Nadas" <stephen.nadas@ericsson.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.nadas@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3443A690A for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.797, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTe41i3E8ve8 for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BD93A63CB for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6FKVS3A016003; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:31:29 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.20]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:31:15 -0500
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA058B.3331670D"
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:31:13 -0500
Message-ID: <DF78BDF6956FDD4780D5DAD88A073CF4026E816B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
Thread-Index: AcoERHRMYdnDjFfVSXSA3LAVctoFrAAEbj2gAB822NAALZUWkA==
References: <DF78BDF6956FDD4780D5DAD88A073CF4026B4C34@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0907140821570.26779@netcore.fi> <497B6D90E0023142AF34948DEFFAB38D399DDDE455@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
From: Stephen Nadas <stephen.nadas@ericsson.com>
To: Mukesh Gupta <mukesh@juniper.net>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2009 20:31:15.0529 (UTC) FILETIME=[3373A390:01CA058B]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:26:18 -0700
Cc: mathis@psc.edu, draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec@tools.ietf.org, touch@isi.edu, magnus@rsa.com, Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com, Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@ericsson.com>, vrrp@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk, vrrp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:32:43 -0000
Hi Mukesh, Here's what I did, wrt checking IPv6 interop between (A) draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt and (B) draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-03.txt (actually pre-04 which numbered all these steps - but otherwise this is same as -03 for this purpose). Following the rest of this discussion in detail depends on looking at the attachments. I looked at sections 6.4.1 (init) , 6.4.2 (backup) , 6.4.3 (master), 7.1(recv) & 7.2(transmit). I labeled all the IPv6 and IPVx (i.e., 4 and 6 steps in common) as follows: - by section: i-init, b-backup, m-master, r-recv, t-transmit, - then by "6" for (A) and "u" for (B) - and then with an alphanumeric as an id (so m63 is master state's 3rd step in (A) and mu3 is master state's 3rd step in (B); step mub is 11th master state step in unified, etc.). Things that don't line up/or may need something changed are labeled XXX. Differences: 6.4.1 (init) sections are same but perhaps for editorial changes. 6.4.2 (backup) unified adds a step between "bum" and "bun" that recomputes Master_Down_Interval. I think this went in as byproduct of Mark Handley's review note: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg01003.html otherwise sections are same but perhaps for editorial changes. 6.4.3 (master) 1) unified missed a step between "m63/m64" that said "MUST respond to ND rtr solicits" - this appears to be an editor goof and should be added to unified. 2) Unified added a step (635) between steps "mu3" and "mu4" that says "if accept mode is false: MUST NOT drop IPv6 Neighbor Solicits and N. Adverts." Editorially it looks like that maybe better placed in w/step (650). 3) Unified added 2 steps in between "muo" and "mup" to recompute skew and master_down_interval. See Mark Handley's note: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg01003.html otherwise sections are same but perhaps for editorial changes. 7.1 recv softened step "r68" into "ru8" and removed "r69" and "r6a" based on Don Provan's note, which says it copied wrrp list, but I can't see in archive. Anyway it is attached. otherwise sections are same but perhaps for editorial changes. 7.2 transmit sections are same but perhaps for editorial changes. editorially, "XXX" and "tu2" are same and should be pulled outside of the if. I think unified fixes some small things. Maybe I'm missing something basic, but I think IPv6 implementations would interop w/unified implementations without issues. There could be some issues where unified has fixed something but (A) would have these issues too. Steve SJN> -----Original Message----- SJN> From: Stephen Nadas SJN> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:36 PM SJN> To: 'Mukesh Gupta'; Pekka Savola SJN> Cc: M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk; dromasca@avaya.com; SJN> touch@isi.edu; mathis@psc.edu; magnus@rsa.com; Christian SJN> Vogt; Jari Arkko; Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com; SJN> vrrp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; SJN> draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec@tools.ietf.org; vrrp@ietf.org SJN> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt SJN> SJN> SJN> That's a good point. Steve, could you please check SJN> the differences SJN> SJN> between the v6 parts of this spec and the SJN> vrrp-ipv6-spec and see if SJN> SJN> both the version will be interoperable or not? If SJN> there are enough SJN> SJN> differences, we might have to increment the version SJN> number in this SJN> SJN> spec :( SJN> SJN> I am thinking we didn't change any of the IPv6 (at least SJN> intentionally) but I will check and get back. SJN> SJN> Steve
--- Begin Message ---I have to admit, I don't recall why I'm being singled out for these questions. Did I rewrite this at some point or something? I have to admit, I've always found myself at odds with this part of the spec because it always seems as if my philosophy is much more liberal than the original intent. But I'll do my best to answer, anyway... "1) the check that the _local router_ isn't the IPvX address owner need not say anything about _Priority 255_. Right?" I assume the intent was to reinforce that priority 255 *means* "owner". I agree that "priority 255" makes one think of the packet rather than the interface, but I don't think it's entirely wrong since we do, in fact, signify ownership only by assigning 255 as our priority on the VR. But it is redundant, and you can remove it if you feel that redundancy causes confusion. "That is confusing and afaict irelevant (If I get an adv for an address I own I must drop & shld log)" I'm not sure what you're confused about. The owner should always ignore any attempts by someone else to control the VR, and that appears to be what the paragraph is saying. "2) I am confused about the check that the packet came from the address owner. (Why can't I can get an adv from a master who is not the address owner, eg a dfferent backup for a down master address owner.)" My interpretation is that the original intent was that advertisements from owners should be given special attention because they are assumed to be more correct than any other information, including the local configuration. Any other non-owner master might be configured worse than us, but the owner's configuration is assumed to be golden. "Is this latter a stand alone check that is really needed? (or maybe some text that has just been carried along?) it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the preceding MAY (which seems to be essence of Mark's comment.)" As I recall, originally the ``MAY verify that "Count IPvX Addrs" and the list of IPvX Address matches the IPvX Address(es) configured for the VRID'' was a MUST, and that's probably where the "MUST drop" came from. I think the idea was that we should ignore advertisements from routers with a misconfiguration of the IP addresses unless it was the owner, in which case we should consider ourselves wrong. I've always felt that there was a latent flaw in the VRRP design that called for it to distrust any other router except the owner. I believe this was a mistaken attempt at security, but we've subsequently rejected VRRP security itself as counter-productive, and I think we need to extend this to these consistency checks. In this section, I think that means only reporting any inconsistent configurations but always continue with normal advertisement processing rather than ever dropping an advertisement because it differs from the one we would send. -don -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:stephen.nadas@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:12 PM To: Don Provan Cc: vrrp@ietf.org; M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: May, should, must confusing section 7.1 vrrp Hi Don, I'm trying, once again, to clean this up. Been busy elsewhere... Mark H. pointed out: > Section 7.1: > > - MAY verify that "Count IPvX Addrs" and the list of IPvX Address > matches the IPvX Address(es) configured for the VRID > > If the above check fails, the receiver SHOULD log the event and MAY > indicate via network management that a misconfiguration > was detected. > If the packet was not generated by the address owner (Priority does > not equal 255 (decimal)), the receiver MUST drop the packet, > otherwise continue processing. > > This combination of MAY, SHOULD and MUST is confusing. Also > it's not clear if the second "If" is conditional on the first > "If". It seems like you may have a mandatory action that you > can't do unless you do an optional action. > So I agree it's confusing. The text (from rfc, and -v6 and from combined) all say the same. In particular the immediately prior text isn't much better: - MUST verify that the VRID is configured on the receiving interface and the local router is not the IPv6 Address owner (Priority equals 255 (decimal)). If any one of the above checks fails, the receiver MUST discard the packet, SHOULD log the event and SHOULD indicate via network management that an error occurred. - MAY verify that the IPv6 Address matches the IPv6_Address (As above...) So here's my questions: 1) the check that the _local router_ isn't the IPvX address owner need not say anything about _Priority 255_. Right? That is confusing and afaict irelevant (If I get an adv for an address I own I must drop & shld log) 2) I am confused about the check that the packet came from the address owner. (Why can't I can get an adv from a master who is not the address owner, eg a dfferent backup for a down master address owner.) Is this latter a stand alone check that is really needed? (or maybe some text that has just been carried along?) it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the preceeding MAY (which seems to be essence of Mark's comment.) Thanks, Steve--- End Message ---
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Mukesh Gupta
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Pekka Savola
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Mukesh Gupta
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Stephen Nadas
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Stephen Nadas
- Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt Mukesh Gupta