Thanks. I also heard from Brian McGehee. It is basically the same reason:
efficiency by removing processing that is deemed unneeded. In this case the
layer 2 and 4 checksums are relied upon and simplification and thereby
performance is achieved at layer 3.
These are obvious reasons and I have seen them documented. Wonder on two
things:
1. one if there were other reasons for not including checksum in IPv6 header,
historically speaking if there was a contrary view?
2. second, concerns the security implication if any. Yes the checksum was
intended for guarding against transmission errors, not as a security technique.
The question is if there are some unintended security impact possible?
Eventually the presence or absence of a checksum at layer 3 may be not too
important because the checksum can be recomputed if some malicious change is
inserted.
Thanks for the input.
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Rahim Choudhary wrote:
This may be a matter that is common knowledge to this list. But please
forgive me for asking. What were the reasons that the IPv6 working group
decided not to include a checksum field for the IPv6 packet Header? Does it
have no security impact to omit the checksum?
The short version is that in general the checksum found implementation
errors, but given a working system rarely found true operational errors. It's
not stupid as a debug technique, but it doesn't result in packet discard in
real networks, and so was deemed unjustified.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
