Subject: Re: [MBONED] AMT, IPv6 and zero checksums

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:02:39 -0500

Folks,

Somehow, it feels like we have been here before. More than once! Let's dedicate some time to resolving this issue at the next MBONED meeting.

                                                 Ron

> 
> Why do we have to bring this up every 18 months?
> 
> Dino
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:07:36 -0800

> Somehow, it feels like we have been here before. More than once! Let's dedicate some time to resolving this issue at the next MBONED meeting.

(1) Stockholm IETF
(2) Vancouver IETF
(3) Vancouver IETF before that.

Dino

> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:08:51 -0500

> Somehow, it feels like we have been here before. More than once! Let's dedicate some time to resolving this issue at the next MBONED meeting.

I think that this is triggered by the closeness of UDPChecksums to
WGLC. I appreciate the "ground truth" that we have gotten from AMT in
this effort.

I certainly did not intend any major perturbation to AMT, but it
doesn't hurt to discuss things. If it comes up here, we will be better
prepared for the LCs that AMT and UDPChecksums will both have to
endure.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:38:20 +0100

Dino, Ron,

I understand your frustration, but work on this issue is not finished 
until we have the text in the AMT draft consistent with what is done in 
6man, which looks to me as a prerequisite if we want to pass IESG 
review. Just saying that the UDP checksum "MAY be zero for AMT IP 
Multicast Data messages carried over IPv6" is, I fear, not good enough 
in this respect.

My thinking is that if people think/know that boxes dropping zero 
checksum'd UPDv6 don't exist or aren't a problem, then they should try 
to modify [I-D.ietf-6man-udpchecksums] so that a few MUSTs are made into 
MAYs.

-Thomas

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:41:41 -0800

Thomas,

> Multicast Data messages carried over IPv6" is, I fear, not good enough

Thinking through this, I was fearing the same.

> to modify [I-D.ietf-6man-udpchecksums] so that a few MUSTs are made into

Fortunately I don't believe there are any IPv6 AMT gateway
implementations that would be affected by adding this to AMT. It's
just our draft process suffering yet another mod.

I think the text from your original message in this thread is a good start.

Greg B,

Since you currently hold the token, can you also try to roll this into
the edits? Maybe you can send the currently list-driven mods first so
we all can digest them while you work on making these checksum mods to
the V6 section. I think we can still be on schedule for mod consensus
and WGLC the week after Taipei.

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: Greg Bumgardner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:25:58 -0800

> and WGLC the week after Taipei.
Yes, I will add this to the list. My work on the document was 
interrupted by shoulder surgery last Thursday - this is my first attempt 
at two-handed typing since - so it will be a few days before I'll have 
something ready for review.

Thanks,

-g.b.