Re: I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> <Apologies that this ia a bit old, but it repeats a - sadly - very  
> common
> misperception that is worth correcting yet again.>
>
>> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> If a protocol doesn't need port numbers or a UDP-like checksum (i.e.,
>> either no checksum or a better one)
>
> UDP does provide for packets with no checksum. Read the spec:
>
>   "An all zero transmitted checksum value means that the transmitter
>   generated no checksum (for debugging or for higher level  
> protocols that
>   don't care)."
>

Not AFAICT in IPv6 :

rfc2460 :

       o  Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6 node,
          the UDP checksum is not optional.  That is, whenever
          originating a UDP packet, an IPv6 node must compute a UDP
          checksum over the packet and the pseudo-header, and, if that
          computation yields a result of zero, it must be changed to hex
          FFFF for placement in the UDP header.  IPv6 receivers must
          discard UDP packets containing a zero checksum, and should log
          the error.

There has been discussion recently about relaxing this in UDP  
tunnels, such as AMT.

Regards
Marshall


> (Minor pet peeve: we did blow it very microscopically, IMO; the  
> reserved
> value should have been all ones, not all zeros, as all ones could  
> never be a
> legitimate output from the checksum-generation step, but that's a  
> minor
> quibble.)
>
> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]