Subject: Re: updated PIM for IPv6 draft

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)

Jinmei,

> 
> > Your approach would be consistent with what OSPF for IPv6 does.
> > The draft could be changed to require that change, but I would like
> > some input from the working groups.
> 
> >> i.e. the checksum is calculated without a pseudo-IP header. However, I
> >> believe it should be calculated *with* a pseudo-IP header for IPv6 PIM
> >> packets, because IPv6 does not have an IP layer checksum and because
> >> PIM depends on some fileds of received IP packets (e.g. the source
> >> address field).
> >> 
> >> If it's reasonable, I hope it will be described in a future version of
> >> the pim-ipv6 draft and/or the pim-v2 draft.
> 
> I've been watching the list, but I've not seen any opinions on this
> issue (sorry if I missed something). Does this mean that everyone
> agrees on the change? Or do I miss something fundamental?
> 

For what it is worth I agree with you.  Any upper level protocol that
depends on the fields of the IPv6 header which are covered by the standard
TCP/UDP pseudo header checksum calculation should specify the same pseudo
header checksum calculation.  Without this integrity check, misdelivered
or intentially forged datagrams could cause serious problems absent some
other form of integrity check.

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------