On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"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.
I personally think that receivers SHOULD require special configuration
to
accept UDP 0 checksums. Receivers that are acting as tunnel end points
are
likely to require special optimizations anyway.
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.
OK, thanks, will look at this.
Marshall
--Sam
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
