>>>>> "Marshall" == Marshall Eubanks <[email protected]> writes:
Marshall> Dear Brian;
Marshall> On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Lars,
>>
>> It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460
>> if we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by
>> default but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end
>> points in routers (where "router" is strictly as defined in
>> section 2 of 2460 and the Note in that section). That would
>> fully preserve the requirement as far as hosts and applications
>> go.
>>
This was exactly the intention of
Marshall> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00
Marshall> We intend to rev this shortly and comments would be
Marshall> appreciated.
Margaret brought up a set of questions for LISP if it's going to send
0 UDP checksums, basically surrounding what happens when a packet on
such a tunnel is corrupted and gets received by a node that either
does or does not understand the tunneling protocol. One of these
questions hinged on the expected behavior of receivers seeing a 0 UDP
checksum.
I suggest that your draft
1) Indicate whether receivers should be specially configured to accept
0 checsums or whether all stacks should accept 0 checksums.
2) Adapt her questions as questions that IETF specs considering this
exception need to answer to make sure that their protocol will work
correctly in this mode.
--Sam
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
