IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations
draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (6man WG)
Last updated 2012-10-11 (latest revision 2012-06-20)
Replaces draft-6man-udpzero, draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-6man-udpzero
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Ole Trøan
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2012-09-12)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Needs a YES.
Responsible AD Brian Haberman
Send notices to 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-udpzero@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org
Internet Engineering Task Force                             G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                    University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Informational                             M. Westerlund
Expires: December 20, 2012                                      Ericsson
                                                           June 20, 2012

                    IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations
                       draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06

Abstract

   This document examines the role of the UDP transport checksum when
   used with IPv6, as defined in RFC2460. It presents a summary of the
   trade-offs for evaluating the safety of updating RFC 2460 to permit
   an IPv6 UDP endpoint to use a zero value in the checksum field as an
   indication that no checksum is present.  This method is compared with
   some other possibilities.  The document also describes the issues and
   design principles that need to be considered when UDP is used with
   IPv6 to support tunnel encapsulations.  It concludes that UDP with a
   zero checksum in IPv6 can safely be used for this purpose, provided
   that this usage is governed by a set of constraints.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 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

Fairhurst & Westerlund Expires December 20, 2012                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                                 June 2012

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Document Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.2.1.  The Role of a Transport Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.2.2.  The UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.2.3.  Differences between IPv6 and IPv4  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.3.  Use of UDP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.3.1.  Motivation for new approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.3.2.  Reducing forwarding cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       1.3.3.  Need to inspect the entire packet  . . . . . . . . . .  8
       1.3.4.  Interactions with middleboxes  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       1.3.5.  Support for load balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.  Standards-Track Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.1.  UDP with Standard Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.2.  UDP-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.1.  Using UDP-Lite as a Tunnel Encapsulation . . . . . . . 10
     2.3.  General Tunnel Encapsulations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Issues Requiring Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  Effect of packet modification in the network . . . . . . . 11
       3.1.1.  Corruption of the destination IP address . . . . . . . 12
       3.1.2.  Corruption of the source IP address  . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.3.  Corruption of Port Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.4.  Delivery to an unexpected port . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.5.  Corruption of Fragmentation Information  . . . . . . . 15
     3.2.  Validating the network path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     3.3.  Applicability of method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.4.  Impact on non-supporting devices or applications . . . . . 19
   4.  Evaluation of proposal to update RFC 2460 to support zero
       checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.1.  Alternatives to the Standard Checksum  . . . . . . . . . . 19
Show full document text