Hi Vishwas, As i have explained earlier, AT is a complete solution and none of the current proposals in KARP (nonce ID, boot count, etc) will be invalidating it. AT provides the basic infrastructure over which other these will get built. The two are thus not comparable.
Cheers, Manav ________________________________ From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10.32 PM To: Michael Barnes Cc: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email protected]; Abhay Roy; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trai Hi Manav/ Mike, Though it is ok to have another draft invalidate this one after some time. It would be a challenge to get implementations to change as fast (if at all). In my view if the current solution is deemed incomplete, we can correct the current solution. Thanks, Vishwas On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Michael Barnes <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Manav, ------ Original Message ------ Received: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:05:36 PM PDT From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Michael Barnes <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Abhay Roy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trai > Hi Michael, > > > > 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 > > > > I agree with Curis. I'd really like to see the first version > > of this spec at > > least have the extended sequence number as is being discussed for v2. > > I disagree that AT should have a 64 bit sequence space in the base specification primarily because we are not yet sure if the KARP boot count approach is what the WG will finally converge on (in which case we would need an extended sequence space). Also note that the AT provides an "Auth Type" field which can be assigned a new value (similar to how it will be done for OSPFv2) once we decide to move to a different scheme. The same standard that extends the OSPFv2 sequence space can also do it for OSPFv3 AT block - really hardly an overhead. > > Also note that you could consider this proposal as just bringing OSPFv3 at par with OSPFv2. Once this is done, any proposal that extends OSPFv2 will natively work for OSPFv3 as well. So you are saying that this flaw is okay with you? I'd rather hold off on pushing this forward until this flaw is fixed. And I think waiting to see what happens in KARP might be a good idea. Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
