UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets
draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (6man WG)
Last updated 2012-03-12
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         M. Eubanks
Internet-Draft                                        AmericaFree.TV LLC
Intended status: Standards Track                             P. Chimento
Expires: September 13, 2012             Johns Hopkins University Applied
                                                      Physics Laboratory
                                                          March 12, 2012

                   UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets
                    draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-02

Abstract

   This document provides an update of RFC 2460[RFC2460] in order to
   improve the performance of IPv6 in an increasingly important use
   case, the use of tunneling to carry new transport protocols.  The
   performance improvement is obtained by relaxing the IPv6 UDP checksum
   requirement for suitable tunneling protocol where header information
   is protected on the "inner" packet being carried.  This relaxation
   removes the overhead associated with the computation of UDP checksums
   on tunneled IPv6 packets and thereby improves the efficiency of the
   traversal of firewalls and other network middleware by such new
   protocols.  We describe how the IPv6 UDP checksum requirement can be
   relaxed in the situation where the encapsulated packet itself
   contains a checksum, the limitations and risks of this approach, and
   provides restrictions on the use of this relaxation to mitigate these
   risks.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Eubanks & Chimento     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                udp-checksum                    March 2012

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Eubanks & Chimento     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                udp-checksum                    March 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Some Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  The Zero-Checksum Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Additional Observations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Eubanks & Chimento     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                udp-checksum                    March 2012

1.  Introduction

   This work constitutes the first upgrade of RFC 2460[RFC2460], in
Show full document text