Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?
Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no> Thu, 05 January 2017 10:11 UTC
Return-Path: <he@uninett.no>
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 31BBA1294C0; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:11:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, 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 FPLLt6foOCjS; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:0:eeb1:d7ff:fe59:fbaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5702812949D; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [158.38.62.77]) by smistad.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B2C43E9CB; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:11:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:11:02 +0100
Message-Id: <20170105.111102.1073811603989045784.he@uninett.no>
To: naveen.sarma@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?
From: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <CANFmOtk9=Zz-QXkvfYbduxKJ3cuOnWXr2yhwrQoxCNLC09C3aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANFmOtmgatwNn6YQQ_sfOf7mi5qnPSwmB0j9VDbnV4fNgfaRNQ@mail.gmail.com> <48EECE17-E5F3-452A-88A3-DF1891466AEE@employees.org> <CANFmOtk9=Zz-QXkvfYbduxKJ3cuOnWXr2yhwrQoxCNLC09C3aA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/T209ZdU_JZUs4mxIxogZaDTIoa0>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, v6ops@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 10:11:07 -0000
>> > Can anyone tell why is 0 UDP checksum isn't valid for IPv6, whereas it >> > is valid for IPv4? >> >> RFC6935 >> RFC6936 > > 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? 6936 says: The key difference between UDP usage with IPv4 and IPv6 is that RFC 2460 mandates use of a calculated UDP checksum, i.e., a non-zero value, due to the lack of an IPv6 header checksum. Regards, - Håvard
- 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