>>>>> "Marshall" == Marshall Eubanks <t...@americafree.tv> writes:
Marshall> Dear Brian; Marshall> On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Lars, >> >> It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460 >> if we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by >> default but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end >> points in routers (where "router" is strictly as defined in >> section 2 of 2460 and the Note in that section). That would >> fully preserve the requirement as far as hosts and applications >> go. >> This was exactly the intention of Marshall> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00 Marshall> We intend to rev this shortly and comments would be Marshall> appreciated. Margaret brought up a set of questions for LISP if it's going to send 0 UDP checksums, basically surrounding what happens when a packet on such a tunnel is corrupted and gets received by a node that either does or does not understand the tunneling protocol. One of these questions hinged on the expected behavior of receivers seeing a 0 UDP checksum. I suggest that your draft 1) Indicate whether receivers should be specially configured to accept 0 checsums or whether all stacks should accept 0 checksums. 2) Adapt her questions as questions that IETF specs considering this exception need to answer to make sure that their protocol will work correctly in this mode. --Sam -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------