In your previous mail you 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?
=
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
Actually, looking at this as a LISP problem is probalby misleading.
This issue applies to any intermediate device based, high capacity,
tunnel mechanism.
1) High capacity tunnel mechanisms are going to be concerned to
implement in hardware, where the UDP checksum may be difficult
2) High
I agree with Joel that this problem is broader than just LISP. This is an issue
with any device that is encapsulating quite a bit of traffic (that represents
many smaller flows that could be split) in a tunnel over IPv6. It would (IMHO)
serve us well to do this right.
I also agree with Joel
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ross Callonrcal...@juniper.net wrote:
There isn't all that much IPv6 traffic right now (some please correct me if
this is wrong), and the ramp-up speed seems relatively
'much global ipv6 traffic'. There are places with more ipv6 traffic,
where LAG/ECMP is
On Aug 7, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
= in fact the IPv6 addresses don't need to be the same when xTRs are
attached to regular links with /64 prefixes. So IMHO most of this
discussion is insane:
- if we need to vary things between a pair of IPv6 xTRs it should
be enough (and
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
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)
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.)
For IPv6?
Sorry I didn't reply to this in the earlier message...
(1) There isn't enough NAT
Hi Havard,
On Aug 7, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnes 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,
On Aug 8, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
The spec says ETRs MUST ignore the UDP checksum field. This is what
the LISP authors intended and has been implemented this way.
The spec says ITRs MUST set the UDP checksum field to 0.
Could you tell us how to achieve this on commonly
11 matches
Mail list logo
