Subject: [OSPF] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:21:24 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This was nice work.

I did have one question - I don't think it would be a likely problem, but
is it worth pointing out that you're taking OSPFv3 payloads that might
have been sized for IPv6, and encapsulating them as IPv4 payloads that
might have a smaller MTU?

If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I
needed to ask :-)

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:00:31 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

Given that these devices have a common link mtu (otherwise they would
have trouble forming adjcency over the broadcast domain) the opfv3
payload will always be sized for the v6 network which means the ipv4
variant of the packet packet will always be 20 bytes smaller due to the
ipv6 header being 20 bytes larger then the v4 one..

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:15:57 +0000

On 6/26/16, 2:00 AM, "joel jaeggli" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>>https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

Agreed. Additionally, if necessary, OSPFv3 can avail IP fragmentation and
reassembly. 

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:22:43 -0500

Hi, Joel and Acee,

> Agreed. Additionally, if necessary, OSPFv3 can avail IP fragmentation and

Thanks for the quick responses!

The authors might consider making that assumption explicit, but this was a
comment, not a Discuss, so just do the right thing, whatever that is :-)

Spencer