All 

I strongly recommend that people read section 1 of RFC 2765. Here is some of
the relevant text:

Fragmented IPv4 UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e.
   the UDP checksum field is zero) are not of significant use over
   wide-areas in the Internet and will not be translated by the
   translator.  An informal trace [MILLER] in the backbone showed that
   out of 34,984,468 IP packets there were 769 fragmented UDP packets
   with a zero checksum.  However, all of them were due to malicious or
   broken behavior; a port scan and first fragments of IP packets that
   are not a multiple of 8 bytes.

Hesham

On 28/07/09 6:14 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Francis
> Dupont<[email protected]> wrote:
>>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>> 
>>   Thoughts?
>> 
>> => I am strongly against changing all IPv6 implementations.
>> IMHO the simplest solution is to drop UDP packets with zero checksums
>> (as far as I know all IPv4 implementations use non-zero checksums
>> per default and some UDP applications, for instance DNS, work far
>> better with non-zero checksums. BTW it is an easy condition to check
>> in firewalls).
> 
> Out of curiosity, what's the signal back to the sender that his/her
> packet was dropped?? NFS (in some implementations) doesn't checksum
> UDP packets, DNS doesn't, there are quite a few things that don't
> checksum UDP packets.
> 
> Simply dropping packets on the floor isn't polite. Dropping them and
> notifying (icmp <somethingbadhappenedhere>) is also hard to deal with
> since users can't force udp checksums to happen (per
> application/stack) and there's not a clear (aside from application
> failure) idea to the user that something isn't working.
> 
> If you choose to drop the packet tell the sender that it happened
> (port-unreachable or something along those lines, still the wrong
> semantics though), I believe you should accept and correct the
> checksum issue though in the end, it's the only proper path.
> 
> -Chris
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to