On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnes<[email protected]> wrote: >> > the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes >> > which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too) >> >> OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6 >> packet? > > Um, surely, routers are not specified to validate layer-4 > checksums for transit traffic?!? > > Let's look at this another way? As I understood it, UDP 0 would > be used by LISP encapsulating/decapsulating devices. > > If some random (non-LISP encap/decap) host by mistake received a > 0 UDP packet, it would be dropped, which should do no harm.
warning this discssion morphed from a 'what should ipv6/ipv4 translators do..' discssion. While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead of translating it properly or telling the source-system: "oops, something bad happened" is unacceptable (in my mind). > In practical terms, only LISP encap/decap devices would need to > be modified to accept 0 UDP packets under some specific rule / > circumstance, as an exception to the general rule. See above comment. I really think that in the wider context the udp-checksum decision for ipv6 needs to be revisited. There are more than a few cases where the current state of inconsistency needs to be trued up. -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
