I think it is feasible, but I haven't looked too hard into whether people want to achieve this, and what the impact is on the control plane. Greg Daley > -----Original Message----- > From: l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 10:33 PM > To: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx; Greg Daley; jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > mpls@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating > MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard > > RFC 6773. which requires a full udp checksum for nat traversal. > > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant > [stbryant@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 31 January 2014 10:50 > To: Greg Daley; 'Noel Chiappa'; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating > MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard > > On 30/01/2014 22:44, Greg Daley wrote: > > Of course, in order to get the protocols to pass legacy firewall > > inspection, UDP encapsulation may be required, and companies would > > have to actually implement the protocol... Greg Daley > > gdaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > So UDP/DCCP/MPLS ? > > Stewart