Re: [lisp] IPv6 UDP checksum issue

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Marshall" == Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]> writes:

    Marshall> Dear Brian;
    Marshall> 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

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

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

Margaret brought up a set of questions for LISP if it's going to send
0 UDP checksums, basically surrounding what happens when a packet on
such a tunnel is corrupted and gets received by a node that either
does or does not understand the tunneling protocol.  One of these
questions hinged on the expected behavior of receivers seeing a 0 UDP
checksum.


I suggest that your draft

1) Indicate whether receivers should be specially configured to accept
0 checsums or whether all stacks should accept 0 checksums.

2) Adapt her questions as questions that IETF specs considering this
exception need to answer to make sure that their protocol will work
correctly in this mode.

--Sam