IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options: on forcing the use of UDP CS=0 in connection with FRAG+LITE

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A609512018B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 1q9rD0KU1LcL for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 807E91200D7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bAIxnJZQWhZuXZDMbbLIG3DP/rNO9riOEuARrVJBqYQ=; b=CizQDXUvg1oVFzAaGQrB9KfWf TSpXdiBuPbS0jwDf4PsYesgPxj+6M9j8hqQt3ExrD1hAAFY4mQ6xDdMrHqyD9JbBnkj67PvXhOrmi foWMRCLMWP4NS94+/1dWPjmkcUKpOyyJFsGOzYF63gHns+vNxqUnnxaelWtWbybmb58YGvdX51NS4 7UgfLqECgi35fOHYDPPlNh/vS2WbZ9K0dP3fatNJviZEhQah0Cf+jDZ+cbC/O43LhUSY70oWWylqs kky+MX20WwpDWeRBdIpNYOJLjwZyRh+HyvAq3w9eb3BHeHW5IHA0iHfPqm3pOxa12xJNxotw2Y6S6 eTlik/esg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:60513 helo=[192.168.1.16]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1hi83A-004JYn-Hl; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 21:57:48 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34kQ-ziqiSniqQeFTHvHb+4J6e6rKaURJW0ZJMo=q-h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 18:57:40 -0700
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C81D0293-C287-49C3-A453-FED34C8E84FB@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACL_3VHGtMz3htgfFLRGhjXm=qC7kOXQs+cchtamhh-giBnpLA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35T9ApzMaoSVgHSJPpcpfXsbHHogoBbEjMPj6vH-kxYeA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VE6kr33Vk5si5AxSZNmhqysZZGoy6HK37COUgwbvcRkdA@mail.gmail.com> <24692A9B-4AF1-4E32-A760-7D4908A61262@strayalpha.com> <CACL_3VExhAdFCu-kFLLO5DeRYUOFyJztUgJg-vQmnPoecvzeJg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34zY74fhqbXxmiyturfu5mxFjRtA4=R48haX9tP6qLcow@mail.gmail.com> <A1C8FAD8-E189-410F-A6AD-D6F53E486BAE@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S342eWaXY4F_4fJxSpHSyVfGongbSVYoEZASOPS8rLAT6g@mail.gmail.com> <6A7811E6-9C7C-4BA6-B183-D03AE7100038@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34kQ-ziqiSniqQeFTHvHb+4J6e6rKaURJW0ZJMo=q-h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/5Mwv0gOux_zCOloaSNbtld45BUU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options: on forcing the use of UDP CS=0 in connection with FRAG+LITE
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 01:57:58 -0000


On Jul 1, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

>>> Because it matters to UDPv6.
>> 
>> In a world with NATs that recalc CSs, it doesn’t.  It just checks that the NAT sw implemented the update.
>> 
> Is that the same world where 24-36% of paths drop UDPv6 packets with
> zero checksums as Mike reported?

Yes. I find it ironic that you care so much to ensure that the checksum validates addresses and ports that nats change and here you’ve found a true error that you want to cover up instead of fix.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email