IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 57AD712009C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 72m8rB1XHuOm for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x544.google.com (mail-ed1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::544]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F85112018F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x544.google.com with SMTP id z25so25589020edq.9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Of9gb5Syo1W5UZWqCo5KEwSd3ZaLCM4Q6WxyzG48QKw=; b=ireqQRcYoPGOdXOIyYiz9pVYputZQ/PtO2SWbO0tRf+sJbFxJNHiq4+XRg4fW+QYtY b7HPLIK7RtSvO9s4AQpE88w7iWE9fXFB78Wn2cUFNN6pJ2G+8mOAuk+bAJftUZqlVmQQ iIKYcrK1uSNtxidAHCJR2T+J+7VpWU/MvEr04FxURBcKztjBrLjSsfGqkKVHyNkzn7DF KqCmC6cDReHWnPshR+GrcJ59oWU/CM9LFCJvH6zpGh1gxwMTu0Xir4ees1XUZf67F+Vq pKfxeS7bEKzBpsP38pVv5m3cqw2OiHXM4cGFMG+mqEQTDBKspQ1jSZzcn2bfSVX7z9bE 2S3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Of9gb5Syo1W5UZWqCo5KEwSd3ZaLCM4Q6WxyzG48QKw=; b=YE+APR7ZU08zRZ0vPLcSIzwCcvUDThNOzx2kql8GdKKw1lg6qlCPGjm8067tWE4tJu l2nNtKtPGI7hoCoYRCzL2gTeKmRZ5+dpNiNQOVOCOnCYq/u+psM6Cen74Cq02AJyiEQE CW0IcE0q2yx1G9/JcUfoz3kUb6A2xHx0c7yuXh2agT115/QGcPYi1YakOWGyhWGAylh7 BZC3WQlycilXUjpZUBfiy7+qyJ6Kno4XMbliz4A6QJKQGYZTeeXn3J3X11dkz+BmGYGa Cv2qJayQHXcSFs2o90pec+T7c+3Yu6LngTsojGJgdeABfoIoH/n+3Pz3+MZ3Y4h3Hxhl nesw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqUxFRXWjxJaCzbfy+s0VnMlTw8cUTLykbNlyxeg9/CF3OJKsC KDnCk+lmKah/8g7BZ3g1XnQLcccNSolDpb+jm4J0SQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyZtzyRlzER1Vl5LococbeBsNqXZBQpePf58m3fRCOjXha/13aD6AyvrzXkMussL9D4V/LCgUDffLiqqkyHVnc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:69c4:: with SMTP id g4mr26428471ejs.9.1562027741079; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <A1C8FAD8-E189-410F-A6AD-D6F53E486BAE@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S342eWaXY4F_4fJxSpHSyVfGongbSVYoEZASOPS8rLAT6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/RXDWkhuZtgcrwuwjJKP0pTJm2AQ>
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 00:35:44 -0000

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:08 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> >
> > The pseudo header in
> > the UDP checksum includes the IP addresses which provides protection
> > against misdelivery when addresses are corrupted
>
> I’d wager NAT boxes corrupt more addresses than anything else, but they fix the checksum.
>
> So why would not including these fields matter?

Because it matters to UDPv6. Again the reason very reason why RFC8200
requires the UDPv6 is that there is no header checksum to protect the
IPv6 addresses. RFC6936 is only applicable to tunnel encapsulations
where either the risks of corruption are controlled or there is
alternative protection that is applied to the addresses. The
requirements of RFC6936 are really quite narrow, and even to enable
UDPv6 checksums in standard tunneling protocols required much more
text (see RFC7510 section 3.1, and RFC8086 section 6.2).

Tom

>
> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email