Slide title 48 pt Slide subtitle 30 pt IPv6/UDP Zero-Checksum Magnus Westerlund Gorry Fairhurst draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-6man-udpzero-00

Slide title 32 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt ›!"# $%&'()*+,-./ :; EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz{|}~¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°± ²³´¶·¸¹º»¼½ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈËÌÍÎÏ ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâ ãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúû üýþÿĀāĂăąĆćĊċČĎďĐđĒĖė ĘęĚěĞğĠġĢģĪīĮįİıĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃ ńŅņŇňŌŐőŒœŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŞşŠ šŢţŤťŪūŮůŰűŲųŴŵŶŷŸŹźŻż Žžƒˆˇ˘˙˚˛˜˝ẀẁẃẄẅỲỳ–— ‘’‚“”„†‡…‰‹›⁄€™−≤≥fifl Do not add objects or text in the footer area © Ericsson AB 2009 | Ericsson Internal | X (X) | Date InTRO ›The fundamental proposal is to allow turning off the UDP checksum, i.e. set it to 0, when using IPv6: –At least for outer header in tunnels. ›The reason are tunnel protocols such as AMT (draft-ietf- mboned-auto-multicast) and LISP (draft-ietf-lisp) –Wants load balancing and ECMP to work for their flows –Firewall traversl ›Thus tunneling is using IPv6/UDP ›RFC 2460 mandates the usage of UDP checksum for IPv6 –Therefore discussed in 6man WG

Slide title 32 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt ›!"# $%&'()*+,-./ :; EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz{|}~¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°± ²³´¶·¸¹º»¼½ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈËÌÍÎÏ ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâ ãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúû üýþÿĀāĂăąĆćĊċČĎďĐđĒĖė ĘęĚěĞğĠġĢģĪīĮįİıĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃ ńŅņŇňŌŐőŒœŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŞşŠ šŢţŤťŪūŮůŰűŲųŴŵŶŷŸŹźŻż Žžƒˆˇ˘˙˚˛˜˝ẀẁẃẄẅỲỳ–— ‘’‚“”„†‡…‰‹›⁄€™−≤≥fifl Do not add objects or text in the footer area © Ericsson AB 2009 | Ericsson Internal | X (X) | Date SITE Usages Internet SITE Local net ETR ITR HOST FW

Slide title 32 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt ›!"# $%&'()*+,-./ :; EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz{|}~¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°± ²³´¶·¸¹º»¼½ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈËÌÍÎÏ ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâ ãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúû üýþÿĀāĂăąĆćĊċČĎďĐđĒĖė ĘęĚěĞğĠġĢģĪīĮįİıĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃ ńŅņŇňŌŐőŒœŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŞşŠ šŢţŤťŪūŮůŰűŲųŴŵŶŷŸŹźŻż Žžƒˆˇ˘˙˚˛˜˝ẀẁẃẄẅỲỳ–— ‘’‚“”„†‡…‰‹›⁄€™−≤≥fifl Do not add objects or text in the footer area © Ericsson AB 2009 | Ericsson Internal | X (X) | Date Summary ›Using UDP with zero checksum does not always seem to meet goals: –Yes, gets ECMP to work –May, get you through firewalls –Does restrict the deployability to systems that can be changed –Traffic with zero-checksum may black hole in unchanged nodes ›Usage likely needs to dynamic negotiation and verification ›Has impact on other systems and applications –Reduced delivery protection capabilities –Especially if this gets deployed for other applications ›Not comparable with IPv4/UDP without checksum usage ›Has corner cases that must be considered: –IPv6/UDP(no checksum)/IPv4/UDP(no checksum) -> no delivery or corruption protection at all

Slide title 32 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt ›!"# $%&'()*+,-./ :; EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz{|}~¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°± ²³´¶·¸¹º»¼½ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈËÌÍÎÏ ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâ ãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúû üýþÿĀāĂăąĆćĊċČĎďĐđĒĖė ĘęĚěĞğĠġĢģĪīĮįİıĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃ ńŅņŇňŌŐőŒœŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŞşŠ šŢţŤťŪūŮůŰűŲųŴŵŶŷŸŹźŻż Žžƒˆˇ˘˙˚˛˜˝ẀẁẃẄẅỲỳ–— ‘’‚“”„†‡…‰‹›⁄€™−≤≥fifl Do not add objects or text in the footer area Ways forward ›Propose that someone takes on 6man work to clarify usage of flow label so it can be used in ECMP hashes, load balancing etc, to remove one of the reasons for using UDP. ›More discussion needed to even get consensus on what alternatives to go forward with –Not make any change and not allow. –Allow changes and determine what the restrictions are to handle this

Slide title 32 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt ›!"# $%&'()*+,-./ :; EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz{|}~¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°± ²³´¶·¸¹º»¼½ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈËÌÍÎÏ ÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâ ãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúû üýþÿĀāĂăąĆćĊċČĎďĐđĒĖė ĘęĚěĞğĠġĢģĪīĮįİıĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃ ńŅņŇňŌŐőŒœŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŞşŠ šŢţŤťŪūŮůŰűŲųŴŵŶŷŸŹźŻż Žžƒˆˇ˘˙˚˛˜˝ẀẁẃẄẅỲỳ–— ‘’‚“”„†‡…‰‹›⁄€™−≤≥fifl Do not add objects or text in the footer area Further Reading The IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations [draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-6man-udpzero- 00.txt] "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998RFC 2460 "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels (AMT)", [draft-ietf-mboned-auto- multicast-09] "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", [draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt] “UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets”, [draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00] “UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets” "The UDP Tunnel Transport mode", [draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-02]draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-02