Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets

Gorry Fairhurst <> Mon, 04 September 2006 17:24 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKIBV-0005Eu-3F; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:24:33 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKIBU-0005Ep-55 for; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:24:32 -0400
Received: from [2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKIBS-0005h5-OT for; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:24:32 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k84HOK8S007315; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:24:20 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:24:20 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Organization: University of Aberdeen, UK
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport-Enhancing Refinements to the Network Layer Interface <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

So, from a quick look:

The first place I looked was the book on IPNG by Bradner and Mankin, and 
this say (p193, from Craig Partridge) and I found:

"IP Header Checksum. There has been discussion indicating that the 
IP[v4] Checksum does not provide enough error protection to warrant its 
performance impact. The argument states that there is almost always a 
stronger datalink level CRC, and that end-to-end protection is provided 
by the TCP Checksum. Therefore, an IPng checksum is not reqiuired."

This was the basis of what I understood, when working with UDP-Lite, and 
also what was finally was expressed in RFC3819:

   " Any new subnetwork designed to carry IP should therefore provide
     error detection at least as strong as the 32-bit CRC specified in

Section 8.3 said:

   "Errors in other IPv6 header fields may go
    undetected within the network; this was considered a reasonable price
    to pay for a considerable reduction in the processing required by
    each router, and it was assumed that subnetworks would use a strong
    link CRC."

It would be good to uncover more IETF History.