"A bit stupid"? UDP encapsulation of these protocols can already be done. Tunnelling is not new. IP packet, UDP header, IP outer header, you're done. What is not needed or justified is a 'special' encap which requires documentation, implementation, and then deployment - because lack of deployment of these protocols is already the problem here, and that won't help. Now, if there were already masses and masses of UDP tunnels of these protocols, with users complaining about MTU issues and the need for efficiencies, then there just _might_ be a case for it. But if there's no UDP tunnelling of these protocols happening, why create a bespoke solution? To look at your analogy, you're not fixing tool X. You're saying that tool X would suddenly be magically more useful if tool attachment Y could be added to it; for example, we can't use an odd Torx-variant screwdriver in the dark, so let's add an LED light! But torches are already available, and using a screwdriver in the presence of a separate light source is straightforward and the common case. Having the optional LED light won't sell any more odd Torx-variant screwdrivers. And there was consensus that the OSI protocols would be useful and a lot of workgroups were formed. So? (Approach to follow? Neither) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood ________________________________________ From: Michael Welzl [michawe@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 27 April 2010 10:42 To: Lars Eggert Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng); bidulock@xxxxxxxxxxx; dccp@xxxxxxxx; tsv-area@xxxxxxxx; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Hi, Okay, I herewith speak up: yes I want to see UDP encapsulation for both these protocols (but right now I'm not sure which one). Both SCTP and DCCP are useful - if there was no consensus on that, ever, these groups would never have been formed, and the protocols would never have been developed. Now, they are not used much (on the Internet involving NATs); at least DCCP isn't. That's a problem. UDP encapsulation is a way to try to solve this problem - and saying that we shouldn't do this because the protocols aren't used is a bit stupid, isn't it? To repeat this more clearly and bluntly: tool X isn't working well => noone uses it. So let's not fix tool X because noone uses it anyway. Hmmm... Cheers, Michael On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > please keep this discussion focused on which approach we should > follow for UDP-encapsulating DCCP and SCTP. > > I'm happy Lloyd posted his views. I'm hoping other community members > will speak up as well. If I were asked to characterize current > consensus, I'd probably say "disinterest for either > approach." (Which would be fine, but doesn't quite match the earlier > feeling I got from the community, i.e., that we do want UDP encaps > for these protocols.) > > Lars
