IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] IPv6 UDP checksum issue

Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> Sun, 02 August 2009 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <tme@americafree.tv>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631FC3A6A4E; Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pmYM7Tio9vlw; Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AED23A6A50; Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98D4463205A; Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <E883B21D-1DC9-423B-90D4-DF1BB1D774C9@americafree.tv>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A76101E.7070207@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: [lisp] IPv6 UDP checksum issue
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:31:08 -0400
References: <F3FC18FF-E085-47E9-8376-2C4DA00D9F03@americafree.tv> <FA1A0C09-FDE5-4ACD-AEA1-476B090C702D@cisco.com> <C3C481AD-5AB6-462C-A48C-F16E968DE03D@nokia.com> <C8F93853-FB91-4ABC-9CF5-E599FD27490E@cisco.com> <0E71FC61-5A42-4C5A-A22A-69B3213A9EBA@nokia.com> <DB892549-640F-437C-BB4C-2C12A985C4F1@cisco.com> <9A49FB30-3293-4681-86FD-0ABF7CD60994@nokia.com> <4A76101E.7070207@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:31:08 -0000

Dear Brian;

On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Lars,
>
> It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460 if
> we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by default
> but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end points
> in routers (where "router" is strictly as defined in section 2
> of 2460 and the Note in that section). That would fully preserve
> the requirement as far as hosts and applications go.
>

This was exactly the intention of

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00

We intend to rev this shortly and comments would be appreciated.

Regards
Marshall


> In fact, if draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is to become an
> Applicability Statement as we've discussed, that would be a fine
> document to define such a rule.
>
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email