[VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation

Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D9821F867B for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rLM3-wIrp82 for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5B721F866B for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so1365716yhk.31 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/eTObtEUesvl3d+yEwbpku7Deu6jeJc1N4g4ayJLeVU=; b=osG2WIK6Jv8KKuzw7YxeGkGTSxbstKuSS7qFyRGuto9jNWyWgnNnjztIp3pn+Bqge3 1e+QMjxmn1jEYgh4qDZK0etcKdYPOiStpk8ZlFCdgyfXG/yQXXyM2xnWl2+ELVq4UCQO o+oawBZaDR/dYQCC9HgHCbXKlT4IgXRPMyvq+oscdjYAbOq70UpCJX5C40MIOqmMzZwR PsTCDEfQJAgMIIzS7Yt9FkHOrvW1O697b8piY4amVf9En3MFQwOI3XcRkDuMBOEFVWUP Uv4lRhBPdreE0yT8Ebn4QRDTXd+x9n7P+6Xmudmgq9VF1kWY1s4Fvhsz5F1/cY1zzSQp 7Tkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.136.162 with SMTP id qb2mr3526266pbb.67.1333006189884; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.152.6 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:29:49 +1300
Message-ID: <CAJgsEzVnofJ+Fm_eHgpHcZu8+Xuj2ZwEYT_Dy9wbovcVQzfWiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com>
To: vrrp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:29:52 -0000

Would someone be able to help clarifying RFC5798 Sec. 5.2.8 on
checksum for me please...

It says that

  "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement
   sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field and a
   "pseudo-header" as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC2460].  The next
   header field in the "pseudo-header" should be set to 112 (decimal)
   for VRRP.  For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to
   zero.  See RFC1071 for more detail [RFC1071]."

My interpretation of the above clause is, for IPv4 VRRP the checksum would be
defined as:

"The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement
 sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field"

as per RFC 3768, instead of involving "pseudo header" (as defined in
Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]).

If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to
reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ?


Regards

Angga