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
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnesh...@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
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
The original version of this discussion started on ipv6@, and was about
what to do if/when a 4to6 (say a nat64 device) translator gets a packet
that would match the criteria in question.
Now that it's morning, and my brain is
And what about multicast? ;-)
Dino
On Aug 8, 2009, at 7:39 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
The original version of this discussion started on ipv6@, and was
about
what to do if/when a 4to6 (say a nat64 device) translator gets a
packet
that
I suggest that your draft
1) Indicate whether receivers should be specially configured to accept
0 checsums or whether all stacks should accept 0 checksums.
The spec says ETRs MUST ignore the UDP checksum field. This is what
the LISP authors intended and has been implemented this way.
The
