Hi Templin, > Hi Lucy, > > Also, you say: > > > [Lucy] RFC2473 is about IPv6 in IPv6, i.e., IPv6 as a delivery network for > > IPv6 traffic. > > but that is not correct. RFC2473 is about "Generic Packet Tunneling in > IPv6", which could include encapsulation of IPv4, IPv6, or other > network protocols - and not just > IPv6 within IPv6 encapsulation. > [Lucy] You are right. It has that generalization although very > focusing on IPv6. The misdelivery and corruption issues are concern > there too. The draft is very old (1998). IPv6 was barely deployed then. We > should address or document these issues if we are working on it now.
RFC2460 is even older still - but, that does not necessarily mean we should go back and add a checksum field to the IPv6 header. Like RFC2460, RFC2473 is a standard and has been for a long time. So, if we don't like it we would need to go back and deprecate it, right? [Lucy] I did not say that the time is a problem. It seems that there is a concern on RFC2473 and nobody looked at this since 1998 when IPv6 was barely deployed, (I would be wrong, new to int-are), I agree that we can correct/enhance a RFC if it is useful protocol and have a problem. Regards, Lucy Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Thanks, > Lucy > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Templin, Fred L > > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:52 AM > > To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 10:05 AM > > > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > > Hi Templin, > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > > Lucy yong > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:09 PM > > > > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > > > > RFC2784 has this statement: See [RFC1122] for requirements relating to > > > > the > > > > delivery of packets over IPv4 networks. > > > > Does this apply to over IPv6 networks? > > > > > > > > Since IPv6 header does not have checksum, if a packet is > > > > mis-delivered to GRE decapsulator, will that cause a concern? This is > > > > not a concern when IPv4 network is the delivery network. > > > > > > In terms of header integrity checks, they are very much in the same boat > > > as RFC2473. > > > But, somehow that got standardized. > > > [Lucy] RFC2473 is about IPv6 in IPv6, i.e., IPv6 as a delivery > > > network for IPv6 traffic. Since IPv6 packets and upper layer > > > applications have to follow RFC2460, i.e., protect the misdelivery > > > and corruption, so that is OK if there is only such kind of tunnel > > > in IPv6. GRE-in- > > > IPv6 is deferent. They can't be in the same boat. If there are > > > various network protocols that are tunneled over a same IPv6 > > > network, > > it > > > will have a problem due to packet misdelivery and corruption. IMO: the > > > draft needs to document these. > > > > Oh, I thought you were concerned about lack of an integrity check > > for the encapsulating > > IPv6 header. Are you saying that (in the RFC2473 case at least) it > > is OK to omit an integrity check for the encapsulating IPv6 header > > as long as there is an integrity check for the encapsulated IP header? But, > > somehow that is not OK for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6? > > > > Thanks - Fred > > [email protected] > > > > > Thanks, > > > Lucy > > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:57 AM > > > > To: [email protected]; Lucy yong > > > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > > > > Hi Lucy, > > > > > > > > The goal of this draft is *not* to prove the GRE behaves > > > > identically with IPv6 as it does with IPv4. In fact, its goal is to > > > > point out the differences. > > > > > > > > Can you think of any differences between the two GRE environments that > > > > we have failed to point out? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > > Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:25:54 +0000 > > > > > From: Lucy yong <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545BB21@dfweml701- > > > > > chm> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > If this draft is to document the protocol of gre in IPv6 exact > > > > > same as of gre in > > > > > IPv4 and update rfc2784, IMHO, it should point out the gre > > > > > application behavior differences in IPv4 network and IPv6 network. > > > > > The exact same protocol does not mean the same behavior for an > > > > > application since IPv4 and > > > > > IPv6 networks have different behaviors such as header checksum. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Int-area mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
