It's my understanding that checksum zero udp packets were rare 10 years ago... how common are they really?
joel Rémi Després wrote: > > Le 28 juil. 09 à 09:29, Francis Dupont a écrit : >> >> >> => I am strongly against changing all IPv6 implementations. > In this instance, the change is only a backward compatible additional > rule which is not a MUST. > There is no urgency to upgrade any host. > If an IPv6 host becomes capable to receive more UDP packets translated > from IPv4 (including those that are sent with checksum zero), I don't > see what harm it may cause to anyone else. > > >> 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). > > The point is just to improve connectivity where UDP zero checksums ARE > actually used, and this at no cost where they are not used. > > To take in consideration your (useful) remark, the proposal could be > improved by replacing a SHOULD by a MAY: > - IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP zero checksums (but of course MUST still > send non-zero UDP checksums). > - v4 to v6 translators MAY either compute UDP checksums when receiving > UDP zero checksums OR translate with the zero checksum unchanged. > > RD > > > >> >> Regards >> >> francis.dup...@fdupont.fr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > beh...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
