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
