IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Wed, 10 December 2014 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F911A1BFA for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:13:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 BZufr1mOY-zF for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EF91A1B4E for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.54] (70-36-209-26.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.209.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBA7D8oO013872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:13:10 -0800
Message-ID: <5487F284.8030803@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 23:13:08 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stbryant@cisco.com, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
References: <CAG4d1rd60hK8=WtYw-nid_Z7Z8+TvdzA52fNx3pFjND+eDWAfA@mail.gmail.com> <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVa60XKQ+48bqF63gTPwYb/3c8NFCXgJ+oWQcdEj51UWj/P7o7RRjiYDhpuMZPYZS3r5XLxPkXfVX5AJTX0v9NCs
X-Sonic-ID: C;igBw/juA5BG0y1Zegs/dsg== M;jL4Y/zuA5BG0y1Zegs/dsg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/Mlti7rvgvuT3my7UrbeCLn4BkkM
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 07:13:15 -0000

On 12/9/14 2:53 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Alia
>
> On 09/12/2014 22:46, Alia Atlas wrote:
>> * IPv6 header protection (non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue)
> I am not sure if it is the non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue, or
> the zeroUDP checksum over IPv6 issue.
>
> Most people doing tunneling seem quite happy with zero but get pushback
> from the transport area.
>
> Perhaps the topic is really
>
> * IPv6 header protection (UDP checksum issue)

Stewart,

That would probably be a better way to name the issue.

Thanks,
    Erik

>
> - Stewart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email