On Monday 03 August 2009 15:28:59 ext Pekka Savola wrote: > 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.
I still don't understand why AMT cannot use a new Foobar protocol number. Then we can specify that 64 translators translate: - UDP/IPv6 to summed UDP/IPv4, and vice versa, and - Foobar/IPv6 to unsummed UDP/IPv4, and vice versa. And conversely, that LISP and AMT shall use Foobar instead of UDP in the case of IPv6. Then, we can have a _constant_ checksum that protects the Foobar port numbers but not the inner packets. Basically it's just like UDP-Lite with 8-bytes coverage. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
