On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:09:13 ext Rémi Després wrote:
No harm expected? I find that generating scary-reading false
positive in my
system logs is harmful.
I don't get the point about scary-reading false positive.
As already mentioned (several times?), some operating systems log
Le 5 août 09 à 08:29, Rémi Denis-Courmont a écrit :
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:09:13 ext Rémi Després wrote:
No harm expected? I find that generating scary-reading false
positive in my
system logs is harmful.
I don't get the point about scary-reading false positive.
As already
Le 5 août 09 à 16:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
On 4 aug 2009, at 15:27, Rémi Després wrote:
That's pointless, because the IPv6 spec, against which
implementations have been heavily tested, reject such packets.
You seem to have missed that the proposal includes a relaxation of
the
On 3 aug 2009, at 17:46, Rémi Després wrote:
if in charge of of an SIIT (which I am not either), I would ensure
that rather than discarding IPv4 zero-checksum datagrams it forwards
them with its zero checksum.
That's pointless, because the IPv6 spec, against which implementations
have
Le 4 août 09 à 13:35, Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
On 3 aug 2009, at 17:46, Rémi Després wrote:
if in charge of of an SIIT (which I am not either), I would ensure
that rather than discarding IPv4 zero-checksum datagrams it
forwards them with its zero checksum.
That's pointless,
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
Le 4 août 09 à 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
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
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 13:35, Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
On 3 aug 2009, at 17:46, Rémi Després wrote:
if in charge of of an SIIT (which I am not either), I would ensure that
rather than discarding IPv4 zero-checksum datagrams it forwards them with
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
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,
Le 4 août 09 à 16:55, Mohacsi Janos a écrit :
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 13:35, Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
On 3 aug 2009, at 17:46, Rémi Després wrote:
if in charge of of an SIIT (which I am not either), I would
ensure that rather than discarding IPv4
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:49:25 ext Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 août 09 à 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
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
Le 4 août 09 à 16:59, Mohacsi Janos a écrit :
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
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
Le 4 août 09 à 17:00, Rémi Denis-Courmont a écrit :
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:49:25 ext Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 août 09 à 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
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
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
In your previous mail you wrote:
BEHAVE's issue is to decide whether dropping them is
an acceptable recommendation for v4-v6 translators.
So there are really several cases
= you do two can-be-wrong assumptions here:
- NATs don't verify checksums: they use so called
On 30/07/09 2:54 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
BEHAVE's issue is to decide whether dropping them is
an acceptable recommendation for v4-v6 translators.
So there are really several cases
1) No fragmentation:
1a) Checksum correct, = No issue, just translate.
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 good
chance that a retransmission will go
What happened to being conservative with what we send and permissive
with what we receive?
It seems that the direct application should be:
1) Be conservative: hosts should not send UDP packets with null
checksums.
2) Permissive: gateways who receive UDP packets with null checksum
BEHAVE's issue is to decide whether dropping them is
an acceptable recommendation for v4-v6 translators.
So there are really several cases
1) No fragmentation:
1a) Checksum correct, = No issue, just translate.
1b) Zero checksum, no fragmentation = Should compute the checksum,
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 Jul 28, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
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
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I did this for the ietf ids sensor and I haven't see any having run it
since noon.
udp[6:2] == 0
I would be interested in some statistics on IPv4 multicast, since I'm
working on IPv4 - IPv6 multicast translation. I think it's more common
to not use checksums for multicast.
On Jul 28, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I did this for the ietf ids sensor and I haven't see any having run
it
since noon.
udp[6:2] == 0
I would be interested in some statistics on IPv4 multicast, since I'm
working on IPv4 - IPv6 multicast translation. I think
It's my understanding that checksum zero udp packets were rare 10 years
ago... how common are they really?
joel
Rémi Després wrote:
Le 28 juil. 09 à 09:29, Francis Dupont a écrit :
= I am strongly against changing all IPv6 implementations.
In this instance, the change is only a backward
I did this for the ietf ids sensor and I haven't see any having run it
since noon.
udp[6:2] == 0
joel
Lars Eggert wrote:
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
