Hi Noel,
On Aug 7, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Francis Dupont <francis.dup...@fdupont.fr>
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?
We could just do an IP-in-IP encapsulation, so the headers would be
IPv6-LISP-IP(v4 or v6), but that does not address the LAG/ECMP concern.
I'm told by some people that UDP-Lite isn't a standard yet? Or is
it? (It
seems to have a protocol number issued?) Does UDP-Lite work through
NAT
boxes? (LISP has a mobile-node mode, which we would like to see work
through
NAT boxes, so any proposed alternative solution has to work through
NAT boxes
too.)
UDP-Lite is a proposed standard, RFC 3828.
Also, hosts aren't an issue - and in fact it's a _feature_ that
hosts will
discard any LISP packets they see (for having bad checksums).
Unless the host implements LISP. See my earlier message on this
subject... Do we think it will be possible to disable IPv6 UDP
checksums everywhere that LISP needs to run? On many of today's host
systems, sending a UDP packet with a zero checksum is simply treated
as an indication that the NIC card should perform the checksum.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
