Hi!
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.
[Tom P.] This is a good point (and the first time it's been brought up
to my knowledge). There are problems however. The UDP header (ports,
at least) may have been changed by a NAPT in the path, which would
invalidate the partial checksum in the DCCP header (if it included the
UDP header).
A possible workaround to this would be to include only the UDP length
field in the DCCP partial checksum (we know that the checksum field is
zero so there's no need to include that). This would give at least
protection for the UDP fields that shouldn't be changed in the
network.
Does that work for you?
yes... without port numbers that doesn't help much though, i guess,
but it's probably better than nothing
[Tom P.] So are you suggesting that we also define DCCP encapsulated
in
UDP-Lite? I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure I see much
benefit
for DCCP, as UDP-Lite has the same NAT traversal problems that DCCP
has.
yes, i was suggesting that. it should be easy to do, but you got me
convinced, i think it's probably pointless
cheers
michael
