Re: dccp-natencap and port numbers

["Phelan, Tom" <tphelan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Remi,

See inline...

Tom P.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:remi.denis-courmont@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:57 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Bryan Ford; dccp@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: dccp-natencap and port numbers
> 
> On Friday 21 November 2008 16:55:13 ext Phelan, Tom, you wrote:
> > Hi Bryan,
> >
> > In the DCCP meeting you mentioned that a problem you have with
> > dccp-natencap is its preservation of the DCCP port numbers.  Let me give
> > you the thought train that led to preserving the port numbers and maybe
> > you can give me your thoughts on why they shouldn't be preserved.
> 
> Preserving port numbers, i.e. having two layers of port numbers, is a
> non-starter to me. This breaks sockaddr_in(|6), and is hence mostly
> unusable.

[Tom P] Does it?  That assumes that you've opened a SOCK_DGRAM, but I think you should open a SOCK_DCCP.

> 
> Not sure if that's what you're referring to.

[Tom P] That's not the most important thing I'm referring to.  The most important thing is how do multiple transport protocols (encaped in UDP) share a port?

> 
> --
> Rémi Denis-Courmont
> Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D