IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Mon, 16 May 2016 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072CA12D14B; Sun, 15 May 2016 23:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXmwFJOLW6x4; Sun, 15 May 2016 23:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C977312B017; Sun, 15 May 2016 23:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u4G6HRSF003706; Sun, 15 May 2016 23:21:30 -0700
Received: from il-exch02.marvell.com ([199.203.130.102]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 22xc8c337j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 15 May 2016 23:21:30 -0700
Received: from IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) by IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:21:25 +0300
Received: from IL-EXCH02.marvell.com ([fe80::7dee:c960:1ac6:8c1f]) by IL-EXCH02.marvell.com ([fe80::7dee:c960:1ac6:8c1f%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 16 May 2016 09:21:25 +0300
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
Thread-Topic: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
Thread-Index: AdGuiiq1HeAHjjuQREGOx9vVjNXiwQAMTSCAAB/eFXA=
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 06:21:25 +0000
Message-ID: <6ed6834bb1e343b287f0cc32428417ff@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com>
References: <eaf5cad817624c7a8758758aa058399b@IL-EXCH02.marvell.com> <AD825FC8-E5AB-437D-992B-F5900B67EFA7@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AD825FC8-E5AB-437D-992B-F5900B67EFA7@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-05-16_02:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1605160088
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0oJVarNxKOV1LmKywKaeVQkkFGY>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 06:21:33 -0000

Hi Ole,

Thanks for the prompt response. 

It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460.

Best regards,
Tal.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 9:07 PM
>To: Tal Mizrahi
>Cc: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
>6man WG
>Subject: Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
>header
>
>Tal,
>
>> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.]
>>
>> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment
>Endpoint Node’ updates the Destination IP address.
>> Therefore, it must also update the Layer 4 Checksum, right?
>>
>> I wonder if there is an upper bound on the size of the SRH. Otherwise, the L4
>Checksum may be located in a pretty deep location.
>> Speaking from a chip vendor’s perspective this may be a problem.
>
>From RFC2460, RH0:
>
>
>      o  If the IPv6 packet contains a Routing header, the Destination
>         Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final
>         destination.  At the originating node, that address will be in
>         the last element of the Routing header; at the recipient(s),
>         that address will be in the Destination Address field of the
>         IPv6 header.
>
>I would expect SR would work the same.
>
>Cheers,
>Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email