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 zero checksum.
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 accepted by hosts ion the
future, just to avoid unnecessary black holes in case of v4 to v6
translations.
But the translations cannot expect acceptance of zero checksum. So I
think it would be better to use other options...
Is progress from what is implemented today a taboo?
(I hope not.)
Not taboo, but changing implementation is very painful. Have a look at
e.g. RH0 deprecation. You cannot expect that every single IPv6
implementation is follows RFC 5095... Especially in the embedded
devices...
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
