Hi,
On 2009-8-3, at 1:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460 if
we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by default
but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end points
in routers (where router is strictly as defined
Le 30 juil. 09 à 03:09, Christian Huitema a écrit :
On 2009-07-29 19:43, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
Er, do your routers do that when they throw away packets due to
congestion?
If a router throws away a packet due to congestion, there's a
Hi,
On 2009-8-3, at 13:18, Rémi Després wrote:
In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good
combination:
...
- IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for router-to-
router tunnels under specific
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for router-to-router
tunnels under specific circumstances (existence of a payload checksum), which
is what we've been discussing for AMT and LISP, motivates *any* changes for
the host. As far as hosts as
On Monday 03 August 2009 15:28:59 ext Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for router-to-router
tunnels under specific circumstances (existence of a payload checksum),
which is what we've been discussing for AMT and
On Aug 3, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2009-8-3, at 13:18, Rémi Després wrote:
In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good
combination:
...
- IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for
Le 3 août 09 à 13:54, Lars Eggert a écrit :
Hi,
On 2009-8-3, at 13:18, Rémi Després wrote:
In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good
combination:
...
- IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
I see no reason why allowing a UDP checksum of zero for
Hi Dino,
On Jul 30, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Hi, Dino,
On 2009-7-29, at 14:02, Dino Farinacci wrote:
From a practical perspective, we prefer that a LISP encapsulator
(ITR
and PTR) not incurred additional work when encapsulating packets.
could you share some data on how
