RE: [lisp] [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)

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

 



Really, you'd want to expose the pseudoheader check at endhosts; a well-instrumented Linux box could tell you a lot
about checksum failures.

But in this case, a router would be decapping UDP/MPLS tunnels as an endpoint, so could report on checksum failures -
if the checksum wasn't zero.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Dino Farinacci [farinacci@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 12 January 2014 21:37
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: <mark.tinka@xxxxxxxxx>; <mpls@xxxxxxxx>; gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; david.black@xxxxxxx; randy@xxxxxxx; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx; jnc@xxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [lisp] [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)

> Do any routers count TCP/UDP checksum failures, much less
> expose the count via SNMP?

Typically they do but only for packets destined to them. Much like hosts would check the header checksum.

Dino





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