IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?

Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 10:20 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 10B1F12950D; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:20:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 4pifa5jHZuV8; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (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 9940612949A; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t125so338237468ywc.1; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 02:20:02 -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=rK0hnxT2HTycomBNYV1YCM/KU/e29NdefzC+pIpUV9c=; b=WGHITqq0SJE2VewczuH0ycOqjzebs83zfPeyemlVhvNLdYOvtrGqvd6BGY0gRYi3V0 26GqoEZX7CFoK9PTwJx3rEN+nsq/y/xH8kA0FuzOsGJCiVa44c3DIX/lWQ24kStBcN5L LNiOu5WTsuszcXzOMUkDtlBug4Qi5D0gicmF0TK+A34USc9iNQ1zbr9c1IFgBkCvYZGf BqmGXQGAJpfH0kwk1Jct2+BXevT9PtLZmAAx5is2jpFTnIXEHmCTWSb3AZ4oHLnxlqpK 00Qs1Z/KpB9j3T3HM5vRHBL684OqvXbDpR9b6C95uiakIJqh6ooNsBadiyZRKy15NBAX ZzhQ==
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=rK0hnxT2HTycomBNYV1YCM/KU/e29NdefzC+pIpUV9c=; b=DNyi8a2VxI/rimfK15lzGrEkxWLJ4tUyZeziOfMDDYpJVFLbTMYYlD9cM35o8UlD8s wxAuAYCxcGCb3Zfl5nvIkgpmabzdM0CLGqs7ubQBtZKWolOYEUfl54GAxCc9PyiT4Tud QdVJ0qcaXZKCGqPaBRinzZNwR8LPK5JEaR9DlCwoBXMS9ewCtIXuRNmNkju7C6pEfcEI j6YpMSLJzfBkrjWOI3VVOaD1fY/rQOLFkIEk6w5DfLpkN8iDYF2l2SXeW8doME9KE8wZ gtiR5J0m9CIQ15qerwy+h16zcnavaudzoNnH8klhIGDY/1uB+ccECXFRN0MzRakF8f// NtAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKVpj8e7EwXrGFivkBwK6aT9H9mTpfp5XQvnSLglqrdpx2ETzaR7SX6e3gLN2Ab7B0q9tlVBxUsRCe+/A==
X-Received: by 10.129.152.133 with SMTP id p127mr72895388ywg.281.1483611601949; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 02:20:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.172.94 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:19:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170105.111102.1073811603989045784.he@uninett.no>
References: <CANFmOtmgatwNn6YQQ_sfOf7mi5qnPSwmB0j9VDbnV4fNgfaRNQ@mail.gmail.com> <48EECE17-E5F3-452A-88A3-DF1891466AEE@employees.org> <CANFmOtk9=Zz-QXkvfYbduxKJ3cuOnWXr2yhwrQoxCNLC09C3aA@mail.gmail.com> <20170105.111102.1073811603989045784.he@uninett.no>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:49:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtnvc31bwfSLY3T-s3x3v0LQCGD5LJMm4HJJWeA-SVjK6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why is 0 UDP checksum not valid for IPv6?
To: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0bc3e284deb60545563e41"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lTqrrD35LeSTNwltn9TGfKMBGvA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <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 10:20:04 -0000

Thanks a lot.

Yours,
Naveen.

On 5 January 2017 at 15:41, Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no> wrote:

> >> > 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email