In message <7c362eef9c7896468b36c9b79200d8350cfd037...@inbansxchmbsa1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" writes: > > Hi Curtis, > > This draft aligns the OSPFv3 security mechanism with that of > OSPFv2. Once this is done, any proposal or extension that works for > OSPFv2 will work for OSPFv3 as well. > > If for example, we decide to go via the nonce and session ID mechanism > or the KARP boot count, then that mechanism will work for OSPFv3 also. > > So, this really is orthogonal to the work that's being carried out in > KARP/OSPF WGs. Once that gets frozen it will be applicable to OSPFv3 > as well. However, that can happen only once we have this piece in. > > Cheers, Manav
Thanks. Curtis > > It is weak with only the 32 bit sequence number. That said, if there > > is concensus for moving forward as-is I have no objection. It is a > > step in the right direction, though IMHO it is too small a step in the > > right direction and would not have to be revisited quite as soon if > > something more robust were proposed. > > > > Bottom line. Falls short of what I'd like to see but no objection. > > > > Curtis > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
