Lars,
At 08:37 18/05/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
the discussion has touched on lots of things related to UDP encaps,
but I haven't seen anything I'd call consensus on the question
below. I'd therefore like to ask folks to specifically state which
option they support:
(1) do one SCTP-specific and one DCCP-specific UDP encaps
(2) do one generic UDP encaps that can be used with both
(3) do neither (don't do any sort of UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP)
I vote for (2), which requires more work (and may turn out not to be
possible), but GUT is a good start. It can also be used to encap new
TCP options if/when they get dropped by middleboxes (e.g. MPTCP,
window scaling, ECN).
Second pref is (3), given existing tunnelling can be used, but it's
heavyweight for some apps.
Bob
Thanks,
Lars
On 2010-4-22, at 12:57, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as most of you probably know, there are two different proposals
for how to encapsulate SCTP and DCCP inside UDP.
>
> One approach proposes two protocol-specific encapsulation schemes
(described in draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps and draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap).
>
> The second approach proposes a generic encapsulation scheme that
can be applied to both SCTP and DCCP (draft-manner-tsvwg-gut).
>
> As a community, we do need to come to consensus on which of these
two approaches we want to follow when it comes to UDP encapsulation
of SCTP and DCCP. I believe it would be very confusing if we were
to standardize both approaches.
>
> I'd hence like to ask folks to read the three documents and post
their views to the tsvwg@xxxxxxxx list. I'm personally especially
interested in hearing from folks who aren't on the author lists of
the documents, but obviously, the authors expert opinions do matter.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
> PS: I'm pushing on this topic, because UDP encapsulation is the
last remaining work item in the DCCP working group before it can close...
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design