Subject: RE: [OSPF] Multiple Interfaces to a Single Link

From: "Ramana Koppula-G20085" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:02:49 +0800

Hi Acee,
At the very outset, I regret the delay in expressing my concern.

The text you updated was "Locally originated packets SHOULD NOT be
processed by OSPF".

Earlier it was "not passed" and now you changed it to "not processed".
Does it mean that the check is moved from the IP level to OSPF level
validations of receiving protocol packets?

If it is so, I too would support the idea. Because it make sense at OSPF
level. Else, I may have some concern regarding the wording.

Thanx
Ramana

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:36 AM
To: Ramana Koppula-G20085
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Multiple Interfaces to a Single Link

Ramana,

I've updated the 3.2.2 text as follows. I believe this addresses your
concern.

 o  Locally originated packets SHOULD NOT be processed by OSPF except
      for support of multiple interfaces attached to the same link as
      described in Section 3.9.  A locally originated packet is
      identified as packet with a source address equal to one of the
      router's local addresses.

I'd be interested in opinions on multi-interface per link support in
general.

Thanks,
Acee

Ramana Koppula-G20085 wrote:

>Hi all,
> 
>Statement 1) From section 3.2.2 of OSPF for IPv6, "Locally originated 
>packets SHOULD NOT be passed on to OSPF. That is, the source IPv6 
>address should be examined to make sure this is not a multicast packet 
>that the router itself generated." This is one of the checks that need 
>to be done before the packet is sent for OSPF processing."
> 
>Statement 2) From section 3.9 of OSPF for IPv6, "This allows the router

>to automatically detect that multiple router interfaces attach to the 
>same link, when a Hello packet is received with the router's link-local

>address as the source address but with an Interface ID other than the 
>Interface ID for the receiving interface."
> 
>Doesn't the above two statements conflict in the case of Multiple 
>Interfaces to the same broadcast link. And also first condition is 
>checked for at IPv6 level while the other is at OSPF level. If the 
>first statement is true, the packet would be dropped at the IP level 
>and is not passed to OSPF.
> 
>I doubt the first statement if it should be re-written as "Locally 
>originated packets SHOULD NOT be passed on to OSPF. That is, the source
>IPv6 address should be examined to make sure this is not a multicast 
>packet that the router itself generated from same interface" This is 
>one of the checks that need to be done before the packet is sent for 
>OSPF processing."
> 
>thanx
>ramana
>
>  
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>  
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:43:09 -0400

Hi Ramana,

>validations of receiving protocol packets?
I don't think the text was ever meant to dictate where the check is 
implemented. However,
with support to "multiple interfaces on a single link" elaborated, I 
can' t see it being possible
at the IP level.

>level. Else, I may have some concern regarding the wording.
Great. The version with this change should published soon.

Thanks,
Acee