Hi Carlos, I am not clear what you propose. UDP checksum includes IP header. GRE does not.
Lucy From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:01 PM To: Black, David; Lucy yong Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Hi, Lucy, One approach is to add a 3.c) to the list that Ron shared. I think there is another potential approach to your initial comment: we could note that for a tunneling protocol (GRE), this is equivalent to the relaxation of the UDP checksum in RFC 6935, and keep the existing text. Fred, RFC 2473 does not mention checksums. Thanks, Carlos. On Mar 30, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Black, David <david.bl...@emc.com<mailto:david.bl...@emc.com>> wrote: > 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 From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:31 PM To: Ronald Bonica; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; Black, David Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Hi Ron, 3b) is the concern. GRE payload may be non-IP type. If a gre-in-ipv6 tunnel is used for mux of different payload types, the outcome may be unknown and can be unacceptable upon IP address and/or GRE header are corrupted. Lucy From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 5:14 PM To: Lucy yong; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; Black, David Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Lucy, Why would you object to 3a? Dropping the packet is the preferred behavior? Also, why would you object to 3b? The packet ends up at the right node, just via an unexpected route. Recall that the destination address in the payload header is protected by the UDP/TCP checksum. Are you thinking that there might be a 3c)? Ron From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:05 PM To: Ronald Bonica; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; Black, David Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Hi Ron, 1) and 2 ) are fine. IMO: 3) works under certain conditions but not all. I add David Black (TSVWG chair) to the thread. He can provide the thorough check. Regards, Lucy From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:49 PM To: Lucy yong; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Lucy, Would the following text work? 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 because the payload destination is reachable from the node that processed the delivery packet All of these outcomes are acceptable. <NEW Ron From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:50 PM To: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Thanks authors to add section 4.1. I am not sure if the statement of “However, even if the delivery header is corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in misdelivery of the payload is extremely low.” is proper. IPv6 requires the end point/upper layer to deal with the header corruption. Could we state that this is the difference from gre-in-ipv4 instead? Lucy From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zuniga, Juan Carlos Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:27 PM To: int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:intarea-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Dear Int-Area and 6man WGs, At the Int-Area WG meeting in Dallas there were some comments on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. It was decided to submit the document for WG Last Call to the Int-Area & 6man WGs as soon as the agreed changes were made. The document has now been updated accordingly, so this email starts an Int-Area/6man WGs Last Call on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-04 Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send comments by 2015-04-06. In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)": Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) Best, Juan Carlos Zuniga (as Int-Area WG co-chair) _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org<mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
