Re: Soliciting input on UDP encapsulation for DCCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,


On Nov 20, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

Hello,

During the Hiroshima meeting last week some support (and some concerns) was voiced about working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP, with a suggestion to allocate an UDP port to be used for DCCP encapsulation. To make this happen, it was proposed that we bring back draft-phelan-dccp-natencap, for the WG to submit it for Experimental RFC. Tom has now updated the draft and the refreshed version can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-03

With the above background in mind, I'm now looking for input on the following questions:

a) in your opinion, should the DCCP WG start working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP?

Yes, absolutely, and


b) if yes, do you think draft-phelan-dccp-natencap is a good starting point for this, and therefore should become a WG document?

Yes!


In addition, please speak up if you have other technical comments about the draft.

I hope I'm not re-iterating an old discussion here, and apologize if I am - but I think that the partial checksum extension header should also include
the UDP header, because it is applied when the UDP header
checksum is zero - which means that there is no other ckecksum applied
on the UDP header... DCCP could, and probably should, make up for that.

I think it would also make sense to define usage of UDP-Lite, especially
when the DCCP checksum stuff is used

Cheers,
Michael


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux