On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Presumably this is a v6 discussion. I can't see any point in using the c/s in > v4. > > WRT v6 there is a movement to make this optional (the debate is happening in > 6lowlan, and I think that we should be pushing to turn it off for PTP. > > The worst that can happen is that we receive a corrupt pkt and either junk > it, or put it in the timing servo whereupon it gets rejected as an outlier. >
I think you are referring to this which is (will be shortly) in 6man http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-01 This is for the case where there is an "inner" packet with a header and checksum, so that the "outer" packet doesn't need protection. Regards Marshall > - Stewart > > > > On 20/01/2011 23:52, Shahram Davari wrote: >> Hi Manav, >> >> The minimum requirement is to do UDP checksum incremental update on >> transmission. If full update is done then UDP checksum must be verified on >> reception as well. >> >> Thx >> Shahram >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:33 PM >> To: Shahram Davari; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: UDP checksum >> >> Hi Shahram, >> >> It may be ok as long as the HWs are incrementally recalculating it. However, >> if its being done afresh then we have an issue. I don't see how the HW >> behavior can be mandated in a spec. >> >> Cheers, Manav >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 4.59 AM >>> To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: UDP checksum >>> >>> Hi Manav, >>> >>> UDP checksum is usually not verified before updating the CF. >>> After CF update it is incrementally recalculated. The end >>> host will then verify the checksum for correctness. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Shahram >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav) >>> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:16 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [TICTOC] UDP checksum >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Are the LSRs acting as TCs expected to verify the checksum >>> before they update the correction field? If no, then there is >>> no point in these LSRs in updating the UDP checksum as they >>> will "correct" the checksum when its recomputed after >>> modifying the CF field. In this case wouldn't it make more >>> sense to just update the checksum at the MPLS terminating point? >>> >>> I also think that updating the UDP checksum may be redundant >>> as the LSRs are anyways verifying the outer ethernet checksum >>> before accepting any packets. Any thoughts here? >>> >>> Cheers, Manav >>> >>> -- >>> Manav Bhatia, >>> IP Division, Alcatel-Lucent, >>> Bangalore - India >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TICTOC mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> TICTOC mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc >> > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc > _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
