RFC 6936: Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document provides an applicability statement for the use of UDP transport checksums with IPv6. It defines recommendations and requirements for the use of IPv6 UDP datagrams with a zero UDP checksum. It describes the issues and design principles that need to be considered when UDP is used with IPv6 to support tunnel encapsulations, and it examines the role of the IPv6 UDP transport checksum. The document also identifies issues and constraints for deployment on network paths that include middleboxes. An appendix presents a summary of the trade-offs that were considered in evaluating the safety of the update to RFC 2460 that changes the use of the UDP checksum with IPv6.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6936
- Published
- April 2013
- Authors
- G. Fairhurst; M. Westerlund
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 40
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6935IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled PacketsCurrent
April 2013
- RFC 6934Applicability of the Access Node Control Mechanism to Broadband Networks Based on Passive Optical Networks (PONs)Current
June 2013
- RFC 6939Client Link-Layer Address Option in DHCPv6Current
May 2013
- RFC 6930RADIUS Attribute for IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)Current
April 2013
- RFC 6944Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm Implementation StatusObsoleted
April 2013
- RFC 6926DHCPv4 Bulk LeasequeryUpdated
April 2013
- RFC 6946Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" FragmentsCurrent
May 2013
- RFC 6925The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Sub-OptionCurrent
April 2013
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?