Um, the U in UDP stands for User. As in, userspace. A kernel implementation of this hack? It would need users first. -----Original Message----- From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eddie Kohler Sent: 10 January 2011 15:12 To: Pasi Sarolahti Cc: gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'dccp' working group; Colin Perkins Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-03 - 6-tuple 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 >
