Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnes<h...@uninett.no> wrote:
> the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
> which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
packet?
Um, surely, routers are not specified to validate layer-4
checksums for transit traffic?!?
Let's look at this another way? As I understood it, UDP 0 would
be used by LISP encapsulating/decapsulating devices.
If some random (non-LISP encap/decap) host by mistake received a
0 UDP packet, it would be dropped, which should do no harm.
warning this discssion morphed from a 'what should ipv6/ipv4
translators do..' discssion. While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP
udp/0 packet dropping it seems fine to me, a translator dropping a
udp/0|null-sum packet instead of translating it properly or telling
the source-system: "oops, something bad happened" is unacceptable (in
my mind).
This statement about morphed discussions is absolutely correct. The
discussion on the ipv6 mailing list should be about the proposals on the
table for modifying the UDP checksum rules. Such a change impacts
IPv4/IPv6 translators, LISP, and AMT.
Please keep all other discussions (LISP behavior, translation
techniques, etc.) on their respective lists.
Thanks,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
