Dear Wentao, > If translator does not touch the TCP/UDP header, yes. > However, if translator wants to do NAPT, which is not uncommon, then > at least one recal. is needed (i.e. before the packet is finally > handed to the receiver).
The idea is, that the NAPT44 is done before the first stateless NAT64 process, so this is a completely separate issue. Of course, recalculation is mandatory in the NAPT44 part. I am just discussing the stateless NAT64 part. > Agree. I think transmitting packets with invalid TCP checksum field is > dangerous. > Stateful NAT is ubiquitous nowadays. Simon? How was the conclusion, "that the transport checksum does not need to be modified", reached? > Besides, the purpose of checksum is to do error checking. So sending > packets with wrong checksum does not make sense. (How could the > translator itself checks the integrity of the packet, if it wants to?) Good point. Anyone? Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
