Hi,
what Bob outlines below is pretty exactly what I thought the intent of this ID
was supposed to be, and going in this direction would certainly address my
discuss.
Lars
On 2010-2-5, at 22:47, Bob Hinden wrote:
Jari,
Then we talked about the strictness. I explained that this is largely
On 2009-8-11, at 19:55, Dino Farinacci wrote:
If we changed the text in the LISP draft from MUST to MAY, would
we still need to write the accompanying document to RFC 2460?
Maybe Lars can comment on this.
In my opinion, any change from the MUST in RFC2460 requires updating
RFC2460.
Lars
Hi,
yes, because RFC2460 says MUST use always and the intent here is to
loosen that restriction for LISP and AMT.
(And I'm sure Noel will again call this red-tape legalese, but the
fact is that this change revises the standing IETF consensus, and
there's a process for that.)
Lars
On
Hi,
On 2009-8-4, at 16:27, Rémi Després wrote:
You seem to have missed that the proposal includes a relaxation of
the constraint that zero-checksum UDP datagrams MAY be accepted by
hosts ion the future, just to avoid unnecessary black holes in case
of v4 to v6 translations.
isn't it a
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
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
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 much of a performance impact we're
talking about here? I was under
Hi,
On 2009-7-30, at 22:22, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
This is in direct conflict with what RFC2460 says, and I'd personally
would find it problematic to approve publication of an Experimental
protocol that did this, unless there was an IETF consensus
Hi,
could you share some data on how much of a performance impact we're
talking about here? I was under the (maybe naive) impression that
checksum offloading was practically ubiquitous these days.
One of the problems with IPv6 is that is so similar to IPv4 but
different enough to cause pain
Hi,
On 2009-7-27, at 18:46, Rémi Després wrote:
A simple solution would IMHO be to complement to the UDP rule in IPv6
as follows:
- IPv6 hosts MUST create UDP datagrams with non-zero checksums.
(Nothing new here.)
- IPv6 hosts SHOULD accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
(Application of the
On 2009-7-28, at 10:37, Christopher Morrow wrote:
apologies, I had a tcpdump expr fail :( I do see DNS though with out
checksums, I'll go dig for some more NFS or other UDP on my test
host(s).
Just as a hint: you'll need to look at inbound traffic if your NIC
does checksum offloading,
Hi,
after the mailing list discussion and the discussion at 6MAN
yesterday, I changed my ballot from a discuss to an abstain. Thank you
all for providing valuable feedback.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Hi,
I'm currently holding a discuss on draft-stjohns-sipso, because I
fundamentally question if this is a document the IETF should publish.
The discuss is not actionable, i.e., I don't see any way to fix the
document, so I'm deliberating what to do. I'd appreciate your thoughts
on this
Hi, Ran,
thanks for the timely response.
On 2009-3-5, at 16:07, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 06:30, Lars Eggert wrote:
Should the IETF allocate option numbers for extensions to our
fundamental protocols (in this case, IPv6) that are targeted solely
at private walled-garden networks
Hi,
the second last call has ended, but I didn't see a review from the v6
community. (But maybe I missed it in the pile of unread email that
built up during my vacation.)
Are the v6 folks OK with this document? If yes, I'd like to move this
forward after the gen-art review has been
15 matches
Mail list logo
