IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 17:45 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 07A6912048B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 8MWIZbwBxVcO for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 626D212047F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id p15so9892107eds.8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -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; bh=gcn9D6C5tDQpLxurINS3JL345oGCQjdwFCtSGvyT+pI=; b=RfduS8ACdfF34iqCZHOK0d7DrB1YNDhVvRZo7X8ggbWT2ojXOo8YCc080TmmmMAHXF BvvITQDdPWLIKwjWd2PDvq8hAbYfKZnYYgaWlThBiZO3szxvyrVnvWFuOsSHvj81TIQ2 gpQkf19m3Bc4+bt+dulUDf0RuvVT6PXZKZdugxd17/mMMobm/Xbf3gz6KYMdg3DxV7a1 EfXvyYcJiAicKcmBLwOZtyuvUvX1I86UkiYWR+/yMwkEkJ0RUkZszzkyrFKmPBrB/aYN uXvsI7Q6NL764J47kZ46tnOzBwrPrz92KbUUjMLiZVPO6sT++OyBp3IiIs4wo2JK0QfN EVNw==
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; bh=gcn9D6C5tDQpLxurINS3JL345oGCQjdwFCtSGvyT+pI=; b=cMwF6OwvImjV9RqLu4mxQYoCouACoauYEEGxD1mE3ijHYaBLJ9LUA2OMjGlWtqYR7N Ho1o5TJqM8FScjxTOOaCvPgtxSdZwTo+foB5q4ceBOqARzNZyodABKyH8OGVgKM+Akr1 8ndjWLhY/4yKnkBw7fefzx8Lpx8IzIs9fALMWpuu/Sh+WzclN2fKuqmvNliZwbWBuiop AED0xie+KwYOq3lZX8lPz4OsAGfSjwudTucGUpHw8OYuEzEsigzpQgk60o0u5e/PtJMj 9dC+4/oo1k4pXoPEjsCqF5JxqUtRoJTS0xtD9KhrFOU3zZmdAHtm1p+Mut1JACMQdD1l a4vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUQqRaOqrnHoGDm9kQtTIEmYZ2gDQQkTXERxQxgTcS/TyZeirqX QjcgphUsjgaI3ZKe7qnRY/+xLAMV6aXZHhkIUQ8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqznU3VlwgBL714AsV3JyqbqOxzIsAmlbp5wDVhB899F9+RzI3vF6BWcoHN7myzuJWOluzhDsTT1kvwYGiawbMA=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:b1db:: with SMTP id n27mr10719615edd.62.1562953501831; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156262970360.865.13042807682366763561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPDqMeoMqsB8=tH5TBaq5Tw-sLW3HNc8tpfUU3htV=sWo7pJcA@mail.gmail.com> <D7E52D2B-3912-4897-80C6-0150CDE10218@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMep9MYqjFvvJSVbqYwo-xJ1pUocYszNukveaZODhf9+75A@mail.gmail.com> <e73919f08202937bf45418cbf8bcc38c@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMeoh3n5fL1k6Fw9D8rCpy4a9eWyUZvgStyzYfFuJbuWudw@mail.gmail.com> <3f6f54e0b828e2628af964d6ee7f33e1@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37rt7OJtH5a2ZH23R21ATETuwTeFS-mZQECtgxPQ3nSZA@mail.gmail.com> <ccc386aa429bfe301998f39eb7fccfbf@strayalpha.com> <140f11c854e0ad96c51639f830cbb688@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35MC_fj+fL6Ax9a-9=-QX0-mHLmMQ7cUs2Rir+AvYE=zA@mail.gmail.com> <5b35e91dd510119672a0836f868ade24@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36AVbKfvb-6dj07rcGjsVsCz0daFM9qZOBSSstZOM-Ukg@mail.gmail.com> <8A584FFF-6C86-4154-8D9D-CF407CA77145@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMeq9GjEQKukH1pZOTdE50e_rc3U6gpdxT-5qrS5phD0RGw@mail.gmail.com> <646D45AD-D79B-4BD2-A084-7DA97CE2C415@strayalpha.com> <7EC37B50-45D5-4CF1-B113-205E55BF244E@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34s7L7xo+26bt5Cdaqi4Es5Aci42GHk1WNKzugr5st-Gw@mail.gmail.com> <B525BF50-EFCC-44A5-A604-6CDDA914A1CB@strayalpha.com> <CAPDqMep3R6z9PRKkHyOvrh6sV9n5Sc0B++-zVz0FYJCwE6swrQ@mail.gmail.com> <E42A2AE2-F499-465E-BDE6-5EFC0AB20042@strayalpha.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306138E9@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <f9f1701c2196c5db520d025294202353@strayalpha.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306153C4@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CALx6S37U5Q9qkxDFfR6w9MpN4qvRagThb+p0GqnAS118cKDuZw@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630615838@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CALx6S36SL2X5StJ59zyKKwNafS1WXh0HMDqbYs+OaDdMLoNTmg@mail.gmail.com> <33045f76897978c01208266c831318c2@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <33045f76897978c01208266c831318c2@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:44:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34BmOefkEMKHLasmUoiWx6P+5yUG_v=Cdzdtw_H1cD7KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/_X7WbOchzt11qokv0JBnrWNWnf4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-udp-options issues from IETF 104
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:45:05 -0000

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:19 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2019-07-12 09:40, Tom Herbert wrote:et the requirements (which
>
> ... UDP options proposal
> doesn't generally meet the requirements of RFC6936 for using UDPv6
> zero checksum.
>
>
> FRAG+LITE does, though - because it provides its own post-reassembly checksum.
>
Unless the checksum covers the IP addresses, it doesn't meet the
requirements (not to mention as hard as I squint, I cannot fathom that
UDP options is tunneling protocol). In any case, the requirments that
UDPv6 checksum must be non-zero are baked in-- it's a done deal in the
Internet. For instance, there's deployed middleboxes that will drop
packets with UDP v6 zero checksum.

Tom

> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email