Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
kura@iij.ad.jp Tue, 15 May 2012 02:41 UTC
Return-Path: <kura@iij.ad.jp>
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 BBFF69E8006 for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 14 May 2012 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.32
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.409,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 AF7nspeLYqMf for
<vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo30.iij.ad.jp [202.232.30.71]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CE59E8004 for <vrrp@ietf.org>;
Mon, 14 May 2012 19:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iij.ad.jp;
h=From:To: Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Date; i=kura@iij.ad.jp;
s=omgo1; t= 1337049709; x=1338259309;
bh=qkP1vwPZsmyU4Xg2EqFIF3NFVMdtrqclzGKeCnauZdk=; b=gx/
hgvuxzGpSnN/Z4beCJeNMzO421yGxD/CtQA4+kfZIiP8FQi6wR6HokTFLkTwcunpdgIZ4vyT421e/
gq1pWjqa14Si5/FrNEYtsiu5QmQyRCG1waipimbb1c84pxOIi47JUnWrR9C/tAE2Lm2axFaPNxd6G
xBZqUWHLo3gK0M=;
Received: by omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo30) id q4F2fnVG019726;
Tue, 15 May 2012 11:41:49 +0900
Received: by melchior.iij.ad.jp (Postfix) id 38FF8108E26;
Tue, 15 May 2012 11:41:48 +0900 (JST)
From: kura@iij.ad.jp
To: vrrp@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: mnews [version 1.22PL7] 2003-09/29(Mon)
Message-Id: <20120515024148.38FF8108E26@melchior.iij.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:41:48 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 15 May 2012 02:41:51 -0000
Hello list, Has there been any progress with regard to this topic? I know that in an implementation of VRRPv3 for IPv4 the checksum is calculated without pseudo-header currently, but I believe that pseudo-header should be involved in the calculation as same as IPv6 case. Regards, -- Tomohiko Kurahashi <kura@iij.ad.jp> From: sahara@surt.net Date: Mon Apr 02 2012 20:41:51 JST > > Forwarded. > Any other VRRPv3/IPv4 implementation? > > > Thanks, > Tomoyuki > > > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:26:15 +0200 > Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation > From: Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> > To: Tomoyuki Sahara <sahara@surt.net> > > Sahara-san > > Thanks for your input. > > Anyone else with either/other interpretation of the clause ? > > > Thanks > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Tomoyuki Sahara <sahara@surt.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Hermin Anggawijaya > > <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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]). > > > > My understanding is only reference text ("as defined in Section 8.1 of > > [RFC2460]") is irrelevant for IPv4. Our implementation calculates checksum > > including pseudo header as for TCP/UDP/DCCP. > > > >> If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to > >> reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ? > > > > My interpretation is different from yours but clarification should be > > very useful. > > It's vital for interoperable implementations of VRRPv3/IPv4. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tomoyuki
- [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calc... Hermin Anggawijaya
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ... Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ... Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ... kura
- [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checksum... Hermin Anggawijaya
- Re: [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on chec... Nair, Anoop Govindan