On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 ao?t 09 ? 16:30, Lars Eggert a écrit :
Hi,
On 2009-8-4, at 16:27, Rémi Després wrote:
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.
isn't it a non-starter for a translation based *transition* mechanism to
depend on host changes?
I don't think so, because it's never too late do do some good without doing
any harm.
IMHO, translators SHOULD forward zero-checksum datagrams RATHER THAN dropping
them. No harm expected.
Avoiding to drop them by computing payload checksums is another possible
behavior, at least for single fragment datagrams. But it implies to compute
payload checksums, which may be considered too expensive and opening a door
to DOS attacks.
IMHO also, hosts, at their next patch release, SHOULD silently accept
zero-checksum IPv6 datagrams RATHER THAN silently dropping them. No harm
expected.
In your previous mail your state MAY instead of SHOULD. Or you are
proposing submitting a draft? :
"Acceptance of zero checksum IPv6-UDP headers at end-host"
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
