On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:09:13 ext Rémi Després wrote: > > "No harm expected"? I find that generating scary-reading false > > positive in my > > system logs is harmful. > > I don't get the point about "scary-reading false positive".
As already mentioned (several times?), some operating systems log errors when they receive packets with invalid checksums. The rationale is that some piece of hardware might be defective, or whatever. > >> IMHO also, hosts, at their next patch release, SHOULD silently accept > >> zero-checksum IPv6 datagrams RATHER THAN silently dropping them. No > >> harm expected. > > > > That will cause silent software failures when running on a "too > > old" system. > > *IPv4 compatible applications should have no problem with UDP zero- > checksums*, or I am mistaken? It will break silently when an *IPv6* application is run on a system that has not been updated to accept zero-checksum. The system will drop the packet, and the application will mysteriously not receive anything. > > Silent failures are the most harmful kind of failures to me. > > And to me too, but I don't see any silent "failure" here. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
