Re: [Tofoo] VXLAN (UDP tunnel protocols) and non-zero checksums

"Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <> Thu, 01 May 2014 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF071A09B2; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.151
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bc9qLovHTusk; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2B91A09C1; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=14045; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398909274; x=1400118874; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=scw1Ksa+LHqHrHtYkK+XP3nbgnu7oRJLBIuB6DkTdis=; b=ldDR73jW9G8VbUAUFSAGzRrCISHXg7plJDlZw21/ZYFcWkETI6jDKWbL EGITCmnnB3wq485+gkhpPeU/7EqntTrXGwvhlmZjUMy8yBmiJCRFIilEL doOaR3otV3pev6pEqOfnVddfzukyvTdsgv584MKpSqd9UpyrWBYkAgeLa w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,962,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="321425443"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 01 May 2014 01:54:33 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s411sXv5032758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 May 2014 01:54:33 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::200:5efe:]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:54:33 -0500
From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <>
To: Tom Herbert <>
Thread-Topic: [Tofoo] VXLAN (UDP tunnel protocols) and non-zero checksums
Thread-Index: AQHPZKbjNYPI8b/6TUi7fhWXO3OBYJsquXGAgACP5oD//4xngA==
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 01:54:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF86F645F3CBBkreegerciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Tofoo] VXLAN (UDP tunnel protocols) and non-zero checksums
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Tunneling over Foo \(with\)in IP networks \(TOFOO\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 01:54:38 -0000

See inline, marked with LK>. - Larry

From: Tom Herbert <<>>
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:48 PM
To: Larry Kreeger <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Dinesh Dutt <<>>
Subject: Re: [Tofoo] VXLAN (UDP tunnel protocols) and non-zero checksums

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <<>> wrote:
Hi Tom,

I'll give you my perspective on why I feel the behavior described in the
VXLAN draft is a good thing.  First, it is my assumption that some
implementations (e.g. many hardware implementations), will not implement
checksum generation, nor checksum validation.  I believe this is an
implementation reality.  If implementations are required to check a
non-zero checksum, but can't actually do it, what alternatives do they

Barring that the implementations you're referring to only implement IPv6, these implementations must be already be doing checksum validation for IPv4 header-- so the checksum logic must have been implemented and I'm not sure the argument that this HW can't calculate the UDP csum would have much merit. A specific example implementation would be nice here, for instance in the case that the stack decapsulates the checksum can always be done in SW if verification is not provided by the device.

LK> I am referring to switching ASIC implementations.  There is no software nor traditional UDP stack involved.

Also, as I pointed out, the UDP checksum is *not* useless in VXLAN. In an L3 routed network there is nothing that protects the vni from corruption expect possibly the UDP checksum. Without any additional security mechanisms is VXLAN header (like a cookie), the only way I could deploy VXLAN is with checksums enabled. So in my opinion, the draft should be encouraging use of UDP checksums instead of discouraging them.

LK> Neither I nor the VXLAN draft claims that UDP checksums are useless, however I think it is an exaggeration to say "nothing" protects the VNI from corruption when the packet is being carried over Ethernet with a robust CRC32 protecting it.


One is to drop all packets with a non-zero checksum (because one
might be invalid and even one invalid one slipping through would be
unacceptable).  Another alternative is to accept all checksum values.  The
second option greatly enhances interoperability with implementations that
choose to generate a checksum and implementations that cannot validate the
checksum.  It allows a mixed environment where "better" implementations
(that can validate) can interoperate with "inferior" implementations that
are unable to validate the checksum.

BTW, VXLAN is not the only tunneling protocol to specify this behavior.
LISP (RFC 6830), specifies exactly the same behavior.
 - Larry

On 4/30/14 12:01 PM, "Tom Herbert" <<>> wrote:

>I noticed that the VXLAN draft allows an implementation to potentially
>ignore a non-zero invalid UDP checksum.
>"When a decapsulating endpoint receives a packet with a non-zero
>checksum it MAY choose to verify the checksum"
>However, from RFC 1122:
>"If a UDP datagram is received with a checksum that is non-zero and
>invalid, UDP MUST silently discard the datagram."
>It doesn't seem like 1122 allows checksum verification to be optional,
>so these would seem to be a conflict. Presumably, ignoring the RX csum
>is included for performance but since the sender can already send zero
>checksums in UDP (they are optional in IPv4 and allowed for IPv6
>tunnels in RFC 6935) I'm not sure this is necessary. Besides that, the
>UDP checksum is potentially the only thing that protection of the vni
>against corruption end to end so allowing a receiver to ignore a bad
>checksum seems very risky.
>As a comparison, RFC 3931 (L2TP) has the following wording:
>"Thus, UDP checksums MAY be disabled in order to reduce the associated
>packet processing burden at the L2TP endpoints."
>This is somewhat ambiguous, but seems like the correct interpretation
>should be that zero checksums may be sent with L2TP/UDP, but on
>receive non-zero checksums should still be validated.
>Are these interpretations correct? Is there there a need to clarify
>the requirement for UDP tunnel protocols and checksums?
>Tofoo mailing list