On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Francis Dupont<francis.dup...@fdupont.fr> wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Francis > Dupont<francis.dup...@fdupont.fr> wrote: > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > > Thoughts? > > > > => I am strongly against changing all IPv6 implementations. > > IMHO the simplest solution is to drop UDP packets with zero checksums > > (as far as I know all IPv4 implementations use non-zero checksums > > per default and some UDP applications, for instance DNS, work far > > better with non-zero checksums. BTW it is an easy condition to check > > in firewalls). > > Out of curiosity, what's the signal back to the sender that his/her > packet was dropped?? > > => none but if you really want something an unreachable / admin forbidden > seems not so bad.
ok. my sole point really was 'discard' is not acceptable. if you toss away a packet you ought to tell someone you did that. > NFS (in some implementations) doesn't checksum UDP packets, > > => NFS over UDP throught a translator is already a bad idea. it's not that the user chooses this, they just get pushed across this without their knowledge. windows-sharing over the internet isn't smart, but a shockingly large number of people do it. Same for ms-sql server... -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
