mail archive Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
vrrp.ietf.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (187 other Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) lists)
Subscription Options
- RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
- Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
- Low traffic list: less than 3 messages per day
- This list contains about 61 messages, beginning Apr 2011
- 0 messages added yesterday
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no
Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
Ad
Hello list, Has there been any progress with regard to this topic? I know that in an implementation of VRRPv3 for IPv4 the checksum is calculated without pseudo-header currently, but I believe that pseudo-header should be involved in the calculation as same as IPv6 case. Regards, -- Tomohiko Kurahashi From: Date: Mon Apr 02 2012 20:41:51 JST > > Forwarded. > Any other VRRPv3/IPv4 implementation? > > > Thanks, > Tomoyuki > > > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:26:15 +0200 > Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation > From: Hermin Anggawijaya > To: Tomoyuki Sahara > > Sahara-san > > Thanks for your input. > > Anyone else with either/other interpretation of the clause ? > > > Thanks > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Tomoyuki Sahara wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Hermin Anggawijaya > > wrote: > >> Would someone be able to help clarifying RFC5798 Sec. 5.2.8 on > >> checksum for me please... > >> > >> It says that > >> > >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement > >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field and a > >> "pseudo-header" as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]. The next > >> header field in the "pseudo-header" should be set to 112 (decimal) > >> for VRRP. For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to > >> zero. See RFC1071 for more detail [RFC1071]." > >> > >> My interpretation of the above clause is, for IPv4 VRRP the checksum would be > >> defined as: > >> > >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement > >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field" > >> > >> as per RFC 3768, instead of involving "pseudo header" (as defined in > >> Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]). > > > > My understanding is only reference text ("as defined in Section 8.1 of > > [RFC2460]") is irrelevant for IPv4. Our implementation calculates checksum > > including pseudo header as for TCP/UDP/DCCP. > > > >> If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to > >> reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ? > > > > My interpretation is different from yours but clarification should be > > very useful. > > It's vital for interoperable implementations of VRRPv3/IPv4. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tomoyuki
Hello
I am thinking of submitting an errata for RFC 5798 Sec. 5.2.8 to make
it more precise in describing the checksum calculation for each address family.
But reading a few responses here, I gathered that there is no general
agreement as to the original intention of the text,
I believe that for IPv4, the checksum is calculated without
pseudo-header so that it is backward compatible with RFC 3768.
Any other opinions - particularly from original authors ?
Kind Regards
Hermin AnggawijayaOn Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM, wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Has there been any progress with regard to this topic?
> I know that in an implementation of VRRPv3 for IPv4 the checksum
> is calculated without pseudo-header currently, but I believe that
> pseudo-header should be involved in the calculation as same as
> IPv6 case.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Tomohiko Kurahashi
>
>
> From:
> Date: Mon Apr 02 2012 20:41:51 JST
>>
>> Forwarded.
>> Any other VRRPv3/IPv4 implementation?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tomoyuki
>>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:26:15 +0200
>> Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
>> From: Hermin Anggawijaya
>> To: Tomoyuki Sahara
>>
>> Sahara-san
>>
>> Thanks for your input.
>>
>> Anyone else with either/other interpretation of the clause ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Tomoyuki Sahara wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Hermin Anggawijaya
>> > wrote:
>> >> Would someone be able to help clarifying RFC5798 Sec. 5.2.8 on
>> >> checksum for me please...
>> >>
>> >> It says that
>> >>
>> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement
>> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field and a
>> >> "pseudo-header" as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]. The next
>> >> header field in the "pseudo-header" should be set to 112 (decimal)
>> >> for VRRP. For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to
>> >> zero. See RFC1071 for more detail [RFC1071]."
>> >>
>> >> My interpretation of the above clause is, for IPv4 VRRP the checksum would be
>> >> defined as:
>> >>
>> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement
>> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field"
>> >>
>> >> as per RFC 3768, instead of involving "pseudo header" (as defined in
>> >> Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]).
>> >
>> > My understanding is only reference text ("as defined in Section 8.1 of
>> > [RFC2460]") is irrelevant for IPv4. Our implementation calculates checksum
>> > including pseudo header as for TCP/UDP/DCCP.
>> >
>> >> If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to
>> >> reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ?
>> >
>> > My interpretation is different from yours but clarification should be
>> > very useful.
>> > It's vital for interoperable implementations of VRRPv3/IPv4.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Tomoyuki
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
My interpretation of the specification is that for IPv4 checksum is calculated without pseudo-header. It would be nice if RFC authors can clarify. Regards, -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Hermin Anggawijaya Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:47 AM To: Subject: [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation Hello I am thinking of submitting an errata for RFC 5798 Sec. 5.2.8 to make it more precise in describing the checksum calculation for each address family. But reading a few responses here, I gathered that there is no general agreement as to the original intention of the text, I believe that for IPv4, the checksum is calculated without pseudo-header so that it is backward compatible with RFC 3768. Any other opinions - particularly from original authors ? Kind Regards Hermin AnggawijayaOn Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > Hello list, > > Has there been any progress with regard to this topic? > I know that in an implementation of VRRPv3 for IPv4 the checksum > is calculated without pseudo-header currently, but I believe that > pseudo-header should be involved in the calculation as same as > IPv6 case. > > Regards, > -- > Tomohiko Kurahashi > > > From: > Date: Mon Apr 02 2012 20:41:51 JST >> >> Forwarded. >> Any other VRRPv3/IPv4 implementation? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Tomoyuki >> >> >> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:26:15 +0200 >> Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation >> From: Hermin Anggawijaya >> To: Tomoyuki Sahara >> >> Sahara-san >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >> Anyone else with either/other interpretation of the clause ? >> >> >> Thanks >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Tomoyuki Sahara wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Hermin Anggawijaya >> > wrote: >> >> Would someone be able to help clarifying RFC5798 Sec. 5.2.8 on >> >> checksum for me please... >> >> >> >> It says that >> >> >> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement >> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field and a >> >> "pseudo-header" as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]. The next >> >> header field in the "pseudo-header" should be set to 112 (decimal) >> >> for VRRP. For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to >> >> zero. See RFC1071 for more detail [RFC1071]." >> >> >> >> My interpretation of the above clause is, for IPv4 VRRP the checksum would be >> >> defined as: >> >> >> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement >> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field" >> >> >> >> as per RFC 3768, instead of involving "pseudo header" (as defined in >> >> Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]). >> > >> > My understanding is only reference text ("as defined in Section 8.1 of >> > [RFC2460]") is irrelevant for IPv4. Our implementation calculates checksum >> > including pseudo header as for TCP/UDP/DCCP. >> > >> >> If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to >> >> reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ? >> > >> > My interpretation is different from yours but clarification should be >> > very useful. >> > It's vital for interoperable implementations of VRRPv3/IPv4. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tomoyuki > _______________________________________________ > vrrp mailing list > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp