Re: draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-03 - 6-tuple

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

 



I am relatively neutral on this. A 4-tuple is cleaner. I worry that a 6-tuple would be a pretty major disincentive for kernel implementations of DCCP-over-UDP. (Perhaps Gerrit has some feedback.) I slightly prefer a 4-tuple for this reason.

Eddie


On 1/10/11 6:36 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Jan 3, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

~ Following the WGLC there was debate on the 4/6-Tuple and how this would work with different UDP and DCCP port values. As I see it, the current proposal is to eliminate the 6-Tuple text and use only the outer UDP ports for demultiplexing.

If I understand what's proposed correctly, I don't think this would be a good idea. The ability to have a well-known UDP port on which tunnelled DCCP connections can be accepted seems important to me; as does the ability to run a server accessible via UDP and native DCCP listening on the same port, also accessible via tunnelled DCCP. Neither of these are possible if we use only the outer UDP ports.

Fair point.

The latest discussion started to wander off from discussing the benefits/disadvantages of using the UDP/IP 4-tuple instead of 6-tuple, but I don't recall anyone really opposing the 6-tuple text. Is someone strictly against the 6-tuple model, or do we have rough consensus of sticking with the current text in the draft? (with editorial changes as suggested in earlier mails)

- Pasi



[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