> a. Use UDP-Lite, to avoid checksum coverage of its payload, and  
> still get a pseudoheader check from UDP.

How does that help with getting rid of the checksum?
With UDP-lite, you now have two, with different coverage.

> b. Implement its own transport protocol, in parallel with UDP/TCP/ 
> SCTP, with its own pseudoheader check, doing payload coverage  
> however it likes.

That's what they did.
They want to do this on top of UDP, which is a usual way to build new  
transport protocols these days (cf. RTP).
If UDPv6 were like UDPv4, this would be a better fit.

>> The mechanism/policy conflation mentioned above
>> makes that impossible.
>
> Not impossible. It comes down to the pain of using UDP-Lite, or the  
> pain of writing your own proper gets-a-protocol-number transport  
> protocol with its own pseudoheader check. Either is better from  
> layering/size/complexity viewpoints than layering over UDP and  
> turning UDP checksums off.

I don't agree with "better" here.
Being able to use UDP reduces complexity here; certainly from an  
implementation point of view (if you consider that there will be hosts  
with common operating systems on e.g. Ethernets that want to talk to  
lowpans).

>> Changing UDPv6 at this stage is a big step.  If that is not what we
>> (the IETF/the IPv6 implementers community) want to do, there is no  
>> way
>> for the end system to make that statement.  This does not mean that  
>> we
>> shouldn't honor it.
>
> Sorry, I'm unclear on the meaning of your last sentence here; the  
> double negative (triple from the previous sentence) doesn't help.

I'm just saying that, in the first-hop/last-hop case, HC could help  
2460 a little here, just (as you noted) NATs tend to "help" with  
maintaining that checksum, by proxying out the UDP checksum generation/ 
check to the next hop, as long as there is something else that  
provides e2e protection.  In the first-hop case, it is easy for the  
host to make the statement (by providing a mechanism for eliding the  
checksum); in the last-hop case, there would need to be some agreement  
(implied or signaled).

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to