Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

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
     [ISO3309]."

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.

Gorry