dear Simon, 2012/3/28 Simon Perreault <[email protected]>
> On 03/28/12 12:28, Ole Trøan wrote: > >> There's a reason NPTv6 and NAT64 chose checksum neutrality... >>> >> >> NAT64?? >> > > Yup. RFC 6052 section 4. do you mean the following paragraph: "In the case of stateful translation, checksum neutrality does not eliminate checksum computation during translation, as only one of the two addresses would be checksum neutral. We considered reserving 16 bits in the suffix to guarantee checksum neutrality, but declined because it would not help with stateful translation and because checksum neutrality can also be achieved by an appropriate choice of the Network-Specific Prefix, i.e., selecting a prefix whose one's complement checksum equals either 0 or 0xffff." good citation! and i would like to point out: 1. as a stateless address mapping, RFC6052 doesn't assumes any stateful NAT64 is also required to use checksum-neutral address -- liberal to others 2. as a operational option, RFC6052 considers having checksum-neutrality through, e.g., choosing proper prefix if possible -- conservative to itself 3. comparing with RFC6145, the latter doesn't assume there MUST be a checksum-neutral address but keep adjusting L4 checksum -- conservative to itself just my 2 cents. hope it helps. - maoke > > > Simon > -- > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
