Hi Ole, Thanks for the prompt response.
It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460. Best regards, Tal. >-----Original Message----- >From: otr...@employees.org [mailto:otr...@employees.org] >Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 9:07 PM >To: Tal Mizrahi >Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; >6man WG >Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- >header > >Tal, > >> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.] >> >> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment >Endpoint Node’ updates the Destination IP address. >> Therefore, it must also update the Layer 4 Checksum, right? >> >> I wonder if there is an upper bound on the size of the SRH. Otherwise, the L4 >Checksum may be located in a pretty deep location. >> Speaking from a chip vendor’s perspective this may be a problem. > >From RFC2460, RH0: > > > o If the IPv6 packet contains a Routing header, the Destination > Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final > destination. At the originating node, that address will be in > the last element of the Routing header; at the recipient(s), > that address will be in the Destination Address field of the > IPv6 header. > >I would expect SR would work the same. > >Cheers, >Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
