Hi Rajesh, Yes, you are right. We should add text that says that checksum SHOULD not be computed and verified when an authentication trailer is attached to an OSPFv3 packet.
Cheers, Manav > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Rajesh Shetty > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10.09 AM > To: 'Acee Lindem' > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSPF] Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 > > > Dear Acee, > > Just a discrepancy between ospfv2 and ospfv3: > IN OSPFv2 cryptographic authentication, checksum filed is set > to zero. IN > OSPFv3 authentication Trailer, both cryptographic authentication and > checksum are calculated. Checksum in OSPFv3 covers ipv6 pseudo header, > entire ospf packet. Covering ospf packet might not be > necessary in this > scenario since cryptographic authentication already covers the same. > > > Thanks > Rajesh > > > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information > from HUAWEI, > which is intended only for the person or entity whose address > is listed > above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way > (including, > but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or > dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender by > phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Acee > Lindem > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:39 PM > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > Cc: [email protected]; Vishwas Manral > Subject: Re: [OSPF] Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 > > Actually I was just making sure everyone was paying attention > :^) Since I'm > an author, I'll validate with Abhay and Stewart but I think > we can move > forward and make this a WG document. > > > Thanks, > Acee > > On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > > > I am sure Acee meant that the he and the authors would like > to see this > draft adopted up as a WG draft. > > > > I agree with that sentiment and would request this to be > accepted as a WG > document. We've had several mails in the past where this work > was supported > and none that was against. > > > > Cheers, Manav > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 2.11 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Vishwas Manral > >> Subject: Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 > >> > >> Speaking as WG Co-Chair: > >> > >> At the last OSPF WG meeting, there was some interest in this > >> draft. I'm now asking for opinions for and against. > >> > >> Speaking as a WG member: > >> > >> The authors (myself included) would not like to make this a > >> WG draft. On the OSPF list and at the OSPF WG meeting, the > >> only dissent was on along the lines of making IPsec > >> (including IKEv2) work better with OSPFv3 rather than doing > >> this. I don't disagree that this should be a goal but I don't > >> think it should preclude this work. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
