On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret Wasserman<m...@sandstorm.net> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>> >> >> This I don't recall at all... I think part of my question is we (as a >> group) are assuming that the reasons for requiring ipv6 udp checksums >> as stated +10 years ago are still valid, I don't see data supporting >> that fact. > > There are some classic papers on this topic. The most recent I could find > is from 2000:
If by 'classic' you mean 'not relevant to today's networking technologies', sure. > http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2000/conf/abstract/9-1.htm This study captured data on: 1) a web crawl server on a 10mb hub 2) a dorm on a broadcast 10base2 network 3) 2 locations that don't give enough information about the connections/tech used The dataset analyzed is not relevant to today's networking connectivity or technologies. Looking very quickly at a small set of data I have access to (servers serving web content to the internet users): 32,945,810,591 packets received, 0 dropped due to bad checksum (ip header checksum) 1,004,728,008 datagrams received, 0 bad checksum, 15886 with no checksum (udp datagram stats) (collected from some unix hosts, via netstat -s or netstat -s -p udp output) Given this set of data I don't think that having a checksum matters for UDP or IP-header on today's internet, since there are zero errors out of ~34B packets. -chris > In a quick re-read of this paper, I didn't see anything that is obviously > dated about it. So, I'd assume its error rates and analysis are still > pertinent, unless there is a more recent study that says otherwise. > > Margaret > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
