Eddie, That wording was unclear. I attempted to clarify in my later emails, but maybe I didn't succeed. I'm well aware that you need to consider the UDP ports for a 6-tuple receiver. As you have reminded us, you need this for NAT traversal. I think you also need this in order to make an effective user-space implementation of the encapsulation daemon, although clearly I'm being unable to explain that today. tl;dr: I vote for the 6-tuple. Colin On 7 Feb 2011, at 16:36, Eddie Kohler wrote: > OK, I still don't get it but this is my last email on it. > > You said "the receiver operation is just to remove the UDP header, and treat the encapsulated DCCP packet as any other native DCCP packet received. I'd expect this also to be simple to implement as a user-space daemon." > > This does not describe the operation of a 6-tuple receiver, since the described DCCP implementation does not consider UDP ports when looking up flows. It describes the operation of an IP-plus-DCCP-ports receiver. > > Obviously there is some syntactic problem here, in my brain or in the wording. > > Eddie > > > On 02/07/2011 08:29 AM, Colin Perkins wrote: >> I'm well aware of the example. It's one of the reasons why I'm arguing for the 6-
