Isn't systematic rather than random corruption more likely?
Stewart
On 31/03/2015 23:04, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Lucy, David,
The proposed text says that outcome 3c) is unacceptable but highly
unlikely. For example, assume the following:
-That an IPv6 address is assigned to every milligram of matter on
earth, including every drop of water. (2**95 IPv6 addresses are assigned)
-That every minute, the destination address on a delivery packet is
corrupted
-The pattern of corruption is random
Every time a destination address is corrupted, the odds are 1 /
8,589,934,592 that the result will be an assigned address. This should
happen one ever 16, 331 years.
Now, assume that only 1% of those of those 2**95 IPv6 addresses are
configured on devices that de-encapsulate GRE. In this case, outcomes
3a), 3b) and 3c) will occur only once every 1,633,100 years!
So, practically speaking, we don’t have much to worry about. But for
the purposes of the pedantry, we may need to say that GRE over IPv6 is
only practical when operators can deal with that risk.
David, what is the minimum text that we can import to satisfy the
requirement.
Ron
*From:* Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:21 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] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[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
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
