Re: [lisp] IPv6 UDP checksum issue

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>    Margaret> On Jul 30, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that *if* UDP us used, it needs to be used
>>>> according to the RFCs that capture the IETF consensus on their
>>>> use, or the IETF consensus must be revised.
>>>
>>> And what we are are saying is to be practical (and sensible).
>
>    Margaret> Well, what *I* am saying is that UDP-Lite was designed
>    Margaret> to offer a practical and sensible alternative for
>    Margaret> exactly these situations.  Why won't it work for LISP?
>
>    Margaret> Margaret _______________________________________________
>    Margaret> lisp mailing list [e-mail]
>    Margaret> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>
> And While we're all *saying* things, I as chair am *saying* that at
> the end of this discussion we're going to document it.:-)
>
>
> Assuming that the current LISP behavior does not change, it sounds  
> like we have the following to document:
>
> 1) Add a normative reference to some standards-track or BCP document
> that makes our behavior permissible.
>

I think that that should be to
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00
assuming 6man  adopts it.

> In that document or in the LISP spec:
>
> 2) Document why you'd use UDP, not IPIP or udp-light.
>
> 3) Answer Margaret's questions about what the effects of packet
> corruption are.  That probably belongs in the LISP spec.
>

I think it should be in the UDP Checksum document.

> 4) If there are changes that seem sensible for the IPV6 community to
> consider long-term, write them up and suggest them to 6man|intarea as
> appropriate.
>

We are updating (a piece) of  RFC2460. Does there need to be more ?

Regards
Marshall

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>