Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?
Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 10:08 UTC
Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@gmail.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 AA74A129429; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:08:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 z8WblgC5wSJ6; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 903CE129423; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r204so338574735ywb.0; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 02:08:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=clpn3jSXfYLol3iOVlVP0VboV6FwYdJVBAsk23RZosM=; b=iwU4WwvCHJ4pCxZMLFZbipnYcyBXQd4xhh9B8Z+83IDzmoXNc6m/BO+1e7v3gs7amO t94fGNxxMR+vPcR3HenJcoEaXz+fDkQE0n6Xfm3w+MGVM5yI4GsujdoxS16DYIWUSCl5 Ms/wLf2AdzUiLwxMEG3KByAuh4lwOAXO8Unh60PUlZzgBWzpvgorxfwydW7dvHUj9gRp +tABvD2tE/hR/2ckQnr7SSUK5p76EBTrlp5bMxB6pd2lXBj5tVlt61jZaMJ64CiO5Dfw 9Amlg+kuPffSiUxeokOMKz3MFMDkMFAtN89I1LARpRtIlLwDFzoEJUAWL+nCYBKYgZ+Q TH/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=clpn3jSXfYLol3iOVlVP0VboV6FwYdJVBAsk23RZosM=; b=bvAuEVIOUOMLnC68ejWc57fuysB++el+yxuOH08TnMXRottb/ortWjvUXNY6VT+mLQ spvQouffy9WGgwXfN/GMODG6DGYsMo1wjPnSvpKCi1cgszfadCZgWMyx4oGomdkkb4wu DC7qGcpVL7/yNeP58Bldz+5P73V7fMsTWBUbgX33ST4uwOBiJTTv0T8lBctfPAFgtGSH AGPAwiQUIg15XadMp9dJuxZokJnMt5k7u1QBkdKQOcb2tl80LncbI9yLKr6z8DaWmdPr 2JWqJhc3V0I0w4VICie0XXn9Pyf/PzKpqLvTcHQWl9TqzlASyNnjknvhmh1FdV+eZi/U pkIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJB1NrYeAQCFkucyTxQZaijsZDtuvCy7R7frp1gL/MpnmoIALBszCwen83CEKL3662avrIFmrjLho7nTg==
X-Received: by 10.13.202.73 with SMTP id m70mr61127957ywd.251.1483610895845; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 02:08:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.172.94 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:07:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <48EECE17-E5F3-452A-88A3-DF1891466AEE@employees.org>
References: <CANFmOtmgatwNn6YQQ_sfOf7mi5qnPSwmB0j9VDbnV4fNgfaRNQ@mail.gmail.com> <48EECE17-E5F3-452A-88A3-DF1891466AEE@employees.org>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:37:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtk9=Zz-QXkvfYbduxKJ3cuOnWXr2yhwrQoxCNLC09C3aA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?
To: otroan@employees.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114816606e912d05455614b4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KloZNY_JojU7zABW6E5hKDp6KkI>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@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: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:08:18 -0000
I see those two RFCs talk mainly about the usage of UDP in tunneled protocols, but couldn't find why it is mandated for a normal plain IPv6 packet carrying a UDP payload with a DNS query or a response. In general am trying to find the reason why it is mandated in IPv6 base specification (RFC2460) itself. Can you please clarify on the above? Yours, Naveen. On 5 January 2017 at 15:02, <otroan@employees.org> wrote: > Naveen, > > > Can anyone tell why is 0 UDP checksum isn't valid for IPv6, whereas it > is valid for IPv4? > > RFC6935 > RFC6936 > > Cheers, > Ole > >
- Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? otroan
- Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? Havard Eidnes
- Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6? Fred Baker