Re: [udp-encap rev2] discussion/comments

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

 



Hi Tom,

thank you for the clarifications. Without wanting to embark on wording details
and/or thought experiments, let me just restate what the comments aimed at.

| > The main point I did not understand is whether the aim is to
| >  * encapsulate DCCP as a user-space protocol or
| >  * encapsulate DCCP as an in-kernel protocol?
| > 
| [TomP] The main point is neither, or rather the main point is orthogonal
| to these issues.  The main point is to allow DCCP to pass through
| existing NAT devices.
| 
What I am asking is whether the specification would work also with an
unmodified kernel that has DCCP already built in. That is, whether the draft
would require changes to the in-kernel protocol in order to make it work with
UDP-encapsulation.  Whether the components could be plugged together, without
DCCP necessarily being aware that it is routed somewhere.

I think what would really be highly desirable is some kind of prototype.

For RFC 5596 there was a working prototype, which made discussion much easier
by ruling out impracticable things that would otherwise have complicated the
description.

I would be happy to help with working on a prototype (perhaps a little
later). It would be great if the specification remained not paperwork, but is
also easy and simple to put into practice. 

Gerrit


[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