IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 10 December 2014 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 79F731A1B3B for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 03:37:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pztsd6IYoczX for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 03:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D856C1A1B17 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 03:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [85.158.136.51] by server-7.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id E1/34-31453-57038845; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:25 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-49.messagelabs.com!1418211394!25033089!6
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.35]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.12.5; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 21780 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2014 11:37:24 -0000
Received: from exht021p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.35) by server-14.tower-49.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Dec 2014 11:37:24 -0000
Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:14 +0000
Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:14 +0000
Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.15) by DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.31.17; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:13 +0000
Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) by DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0031.000; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:13 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: akatlas@gmail.com, routing-discussion@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
Thread-Topic: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
Thread-Index: AQHQFAI+mxeM7C5mI06ufRYYSYZE2pyH3cwAgADUTV8=
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:37:12 +0000
Message-ID: <DB4PR06MB457F278EAF9C84BCA20E665AD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAG4d1rd60hK8=WtYw-nid_Z7Z8+TvdzA52fNx3pFjND+eDWAfA@mail.gmail.com>, <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [124.168.9.252]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB457;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB457;
x-forefront-prvs: 0421BF7135
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(24454002)(377454003)(479174003)(15975445007)(76576001)(92566001)(106356001)(74316001)(120916001)(101416001)(54206007)(1720100001)(15395725005)(77096005)(102836002)(68736005)(77156002)(15198665003)(62966003)(107046002)(107886001)(86362001)(40100003)(21056001)(64706001)(20776003)(97736003)(122556002)(46102003)(4396001)(74482002)(99396003)(105586002)(76176999)(106116001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(33656002)(2656002)(54356999)(50986999)(31966008)(54606007)(87936001)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB457; H:DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/ZtP-QKyQkPZtEyOwDqUFnapW-aQ
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 11:37:29 -0000

It's an issue with zero checksums, ie not hsving a functional working checksum. Non-zero checksums are not an issue.

It's a bit like 60s car manufacturers saying 'do we really need to add seatbelts? They're expensive.' Seatbelts are clearly an issue! Like creationism and evolution, it's not clearcut. We should teach the controversy!

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: routing-discussion <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 9:53:12 AM
To: Alia Atlas; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

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


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email