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 c
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 constraint that zero-checksum UDP datagrams MAY be accept
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 ment
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 syste
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 ze
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 data
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 acc
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 z
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, j
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
its
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
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 non-star
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, because
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 bee
On 30 jul 2009, at 3:35, Christian Huitema wrote:
The fragmentation issue is different from the zero-checksum issue.
Many IPv4 NAT drop fragmented packets already.
That is unacceptable; fragments happen, even with TCP.
They rely on port numbers to find the mappings, fragments don't
carry p
Le 3 août 09 à 22:14, Christian Huitema a écrit :
In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good
combination:
- IPv6 hosts MUST create UDP datagrams with non-zero checksums.
(Nothing new here.)
- IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
((1) Application of the
> In view of the various arguments made, here is IMHO a good combination:
> - IPv6 hosts MUST create UDP datagrams with non-zero checksums.
>(Nothing new here.)
> - IPv6 hosts MAY accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
>((1) Application of the classic principle "be strict in what you
> se
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 router-
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 rout
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
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
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 circumstance
Le 30 juil. 09 à 03:09, Christian Huitema a écrit :
On 2009-07-29 19:43, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Brian E Carpenter 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 retransmissi
On 30/07/09 2:54 PM, "Christian Huitema" 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.
>
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 increme
> 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 checksu
On 2009-07-30 13:35, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> 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
> > 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
On 2009-07-30 13:09, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> On 2009-07-29 19:43, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>>> Brian E Carpenter 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
> On 2009-07-29 19:43, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter 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 through. In this c
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 othe
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 b
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 i
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 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
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 c
36 matches
Mail list logo
