Le 4 août 09 à 16:59, Mohacsi Janos a écrit :
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
Hi,
On 2009-8-4, at 16:27, Rémi Després wrote:
You seem to have missed that the proposal includes a relaxation of
the constraint that zero-checksum UDP datagrams MAY be accepted by
hosts ion the future, just to avoid unnecessary black holes in case
of v4 to v6 translations.
isn't it a non-starter for a translation based *transition*
mechanism to depend on host changes?
I don't think so, because it's never too late do do some good
without doing any harm.
IMHO, translators SHOULD forward zero-checksum datagrams RATHER
THAN dropping them. No harm expected.
Avoiding to drop them by computing payload checksums is another
possible behavior, at least for single fragment datagrams. But it
implies to compute payload checksums, which may be considered too
expensive and opening a door to DOS attacks.
IMHO also, hosts, at their next patch release, SHOULD silently
accept zero-checksum IPv6 datagrams RATHER THAN silently dropping
them. No harm expected.
In your previous mail your state MAY instead of SHOULD.
True, but here this is a SHOULD "RATHER THAN drop"
Or you are proposing submitting a draft? :
"Acceptance of zero checksum IPv6-UDP headers at end-host"
No plan to do this as long as the discussion shows it will be flatly
rejected.
(So far I received only doubts, objections and criticisms, but not
any support.)
Regards,
RD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
