On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:49:25 ext Rémi Després wrote: > Le 4 août 09 à 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.
"No harm expected"? I find that generating scary-reading false positive in my system logs is harmful. > IMHO also, hosts, at their next patch release, SHOULD silently accept > zero-checksum IPv6 datagrams RATHER THAN silently dropping them. No > harm expected. That will cause silent software failures when running on a "too old" system. Silent failures are the most harmful kind of failures to me. > By doing this, connectivity during the transition period will > eventually be improved, possibly before translators are largely > deployed. No. By doing this, people will experience odd failure modes and weird error reports during the long transition period for IPv6 stacks to accept checksum- less packets. Harm very much expected. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
