Thought on IPv6 Zero UDP Checksums

To: "ipv6 at ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6 at ietf.org>
Subject: Thought on IPv6 Zero UDP Checksums
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:13:31 +0900
Delivered-to: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I had a thought on the use of zero UDP checksums in IPv6...

What if we allowed the use of zero checksums for UDP as a _negotiatedoption_ in IETF tunneling protocols? Those protocols could default tothe use of UDP Lite (or UDP with non-zero checksums if their designersprefer) and negotiate the use of Zero UDP checksums when both sidessupport it.


Margaret

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thought on IPv6 Zero UDP Checksums
  - From: Gorry Fairhurst

Prev by Date: RE: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security
Next by Date: Liaison from BBF
Previous by thread: Fwd: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security
Next by thread: Re: Thought on IPv6 Zero UDP Checksums
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thought on IPv6 Zero UDP Checksums

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.