Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-08.txt

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

 



Hi,


On May 24, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

Hi Rémi,

On May 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2011 21:56:52 +0100, Colin Perkins <csp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What's the concern here? Use the IANA registered port, unless specified otherwise by the application. Any UDP tunnelling solutions must specify
a
UDP port.

The concern is that we have two (pairs of) ports. This does not only not fit in the standard SDP m=line, but it does not fit in the traditional
sockaddr_in/sockaddr_in6 abstraction (and its equivalent in many
programming languages/frameworks).

I can't see why the two pairs of ports should be in the same sockaddr_in structure. I'd assume a typical setup to be that DCCP applications continue work as normally using DCCP sockets, and UDP encapsulation is controlled in some other way (e.g., socket options as Colin suggested).

I agree 100% with this. Let the app use e.g. a socket option of DCCP, or don't even expose it and try to automatically use it as a fallback without even telling the application.

Cheers,
Michael




[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