Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Jarno,

However, as you well know, we have very loose semantics for the flow
label still. Admittedly, an encapsulator/decapsulator pair can
agree on their own semantics for the flow label, but it would be
preferable for the encapsulation method to describe flow label
semantics (consistent with RFC 3967).

    Brian

On 2007-12-12 19:08, jarno.rajahalme@nsn.com wrote:
> Few points on this:
> - The issue with having to sum all the data in the packet is moot, since
> you do not have to do this with UDP-Lite
> - There is no way you can require L2 error detection from all links
> between the tunnel endpoints. You can maybe hope. Also L2 errors are not
> the only possible source of bit errors.
> - For the intended load-balancing effect you should be able to use the
> flow label field of the encapsulating IPv6 header. Routers ought to be
> able to take that into the hash in addition of the IP addresses.
> - If your router can't take the IPv6 flow label into the hash you could
> still use multiple addresses per (IPv6) ETR
>
> But I have to agree that I can't see why checksumless IPv6/UDP
> encapsulation would be any more dangerous than IPv6 encapsulation
> without UDP. But for the purpose being discussed here UDP is really not
> needed at all, since you have the flow label in the IPv6 header anyway.
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Jarno
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] On Behalf 
> > Of ext Dino Farinacci
> > Sent: 12 December, 2007 02:24
> > To: Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Iljitsch van Beijnum; Stephen Sprunk; 
> > Routing Research Group list
> > Subject: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
> >
> > > > Dino Farinacci has suggested this text :
> > > > o When a IPv6 router is using a UDP header as part of a tunnel 
> > > > encapsulation,  it MAY compute a UDP checksum. The IPv6 
> > router on the 
> > > > other side of the  tunnel receives a UDP checksum of 
> > non-zero it MUST 
> > > > compute the checksum  according to [UDP-spec]. When an IPv6 router 
> > > > uses a UDP header for tunnel  encapsulation and sets the 
> > UDP checksum 
> > > > field to 0, the IPv6 router on the  other side of the 
> > tunnel MUST not 
> > > > compute the checksum on the received  packet. This procedure allows 
> > > > tunnel routers to behave the same for  tunnel encapsulating 
> > IPv4 and 
> > > > IPv6 packets.
> > > > At the least AMT and LISP would require this, and I suspect that 
> > > > there will be others.
> > > I don't actually understand the "require". If you'd written "People
> > Required in the sense if you want to get the protocols into product.
> >
> > > coding AMT and LISP would find this convenient" I'd understand it,
> > And it isn't the code, it is the gates.  ;-)
> >
> > > but surely the tunnel end-points will know whether they are 
> > generating 
> > > or receiving IPv4 or IPv6 packets?
> > Yes, but what is your point?
> >
> > > I also don't understand why it would be considered safe, in the 
> > > absence of a header checksum - are you deeming that the tunnel must 
> > > have error detection at layer 2?
> > Yes. As well as the low probably of bit-error rates, matching 
> > sockets and mis-routing, all that would have to work in unison 
> > to have a real problem.
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the 
> > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg