On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for router-to-router tunnels under specific circumstances (existence of a payload checksum), which is what we've been discussing for AMT and LISP, motivates *any* changes for the host. As far as hosts as concerned, nothing changes with regards to RFC2460.
While this is true for LISP, unfortunately an AMT tunnel endpoint may be a host; in fact it's likely it will be. :-/
For the specific case of AMT, I wouldn't personally see a problem with IPv6 encapsulating plain IP instead of UDP, though this would complicate the spec slightly. The LAG argument doesn't apply in the case of AMT.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
