On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: > Minor tweak. J > > > > From: Lucy yong > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:42 PM > To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > Hi Ron and Carlos, > > > > Here is the proposed text for the second paragraph in Section 4.1 > > > > Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its own, it > is subject to corruption. Thus the use of gre in IPv6 must be in the case > where an IPv6 delivery network can ensure packet corruption extremely > unlikely and/or the case where GRE payload is able to tolerate the packet > corruption. > Suggest to be "tolerate packet corruption or mis-delivery to the wrong address."
Thanks, Tom > > > Thanks, > > Lucy > > > > > > From: Lucy yong > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:23 PM > To: 'Ronald Bonica'; Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > 3c) may happen for a VPN or non-VPN case. The payload can be in non-IPv6 > space. Is “Outcome 3c) is not acceptable, but it extremely unlikely.” for > particular network/usage in your mind? > > > > Is the goal here to prove such corruption is acceptable or extreme unlikely? > > > > Regards, > > Lucy > > > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:43 PM > To: Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > Resend… > > > > From: Ronald Bonica > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:23 PM > To: 'Black, David'; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > David, Lucy, > > > > You are correct. Maybe the following text will address the issue: > > > > OLD> > > Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its > > own, it is subject to corruption. However, even if the delivery > > header is corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in > > misdelivery of the payload is extremely low. > > <OLD > > > > NEW> > > Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its > > own, the destination address in the delivery header is subject to > > corruption. If the destination address in the deliver header is > corrupted, > > the following outcomes are possible: > > > > 1) The delivery packet is dropped because the new destination address > is unreachable > > 2) The delivery packet is dropped because the new destination address > is reachable, but that node is not configured to process GRE delivery > packets from the ingress > > 3) The delivery packet is processed by a GRE egress other than that > which was originally specified by the GRE ingress. Processing options are: > > a. The payload packet is dropped because the payload destination is > unreachable from the node that processed the delivery packet > > b. The payload packet is delivered to its intended destination > > c. The payload packet is erroneously delivered to a node other than > its intended destination. The intended destination and the node to which the > payload is actually delivered are numbered identically, but reside in > different VPNs. > > > > Outcomes 1), 2), 3a) and 3b) are acceptable. Outcome 3c) is not acceptable, > but it extremely unlikely. Because IPv6 address space is so large and so > sparsely populated, outcome 1) is by far the most probable. Therefore, the > combined likelihood of all acceptable outcomes by far exceeds the likelihood > of the one unacceptable outcome. > > > > Furthermore, even if the payload is erroneously delivered to a node other > than its intended destination, that node will discard the packet if the > payload is also corrupted or if there are no applications waiting to consume > the packet. > > > > <NEW > > > > Ron > > > > > > From: Black, David [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:48 PM > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > Black, David > Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > >> Also, why would you object to 3b? The packet ends up at the right node, >> just via an unexpected route. > > > > That assertion is based on the assumption that the payload destination > address is worldwide unique. > > > > There are lots of counterexamples that void the assumption, e.g., > 10.0.0.0/8. > > > > Thanks, > --David > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
