Hi Remi, See inline... Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:remi.denis-courmont@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:57 AM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: Bryan Ford; dccp@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: dccp-natencap and port numbers > > On Friday 21 November 2008 16:55:13 ext Phelan, Tom, you wrote: > > Hi Bryan, > > > > In the DCCP meeting you mentioned that a problem you have with > > dccp-natencap is its preservation of the DCCP port numbers. Let me give > > you the thought train that led to preserving the port numbers and maybe > > you can give me your thoughts on why they shouldn't be preserved. > > Preserving port numbers, i.e. having two layers of port numbers, is a > non-starter to me. This breaks sockaddr_in(|6), and is hence mostly > unusable. [Tom P] Does it? That assumes that you've opened a SOCK_DGRAM, but I think you should open a SOCK_DCCP. > > Not sure if that's what you're referring to. [Tom P] That's not the most important thing I'm referring to. The most important thing is how do multiple transport protocols (encaped in UDP) share a port? > > -- > Rémi Denis-Courmont > Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D
