|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 04/07/2010 09:02 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:Have the benefits vs. disadvantages of defining a different DCCP header for UDP encapsulation been discussed earlier? The current method saves some redundant header space, but may add to implementation complexity in the DCCP side. I can't say if this is a significant concern, but I wonder if it is a problem that DCCP-UDP supports different set of features than native DCCP, such as not supporting the short sequence numbers?[Tom P.] The purpose of short sequence numbers in DCCP-STD is to reduce header length. Supporting short sequence numbers in DCCP-UDP doesn't reduce the header size. The purpose of long sequence numbers in DCCP-STD is to reduce the probability of a blind attacker correctly guessing the sequence numbers in use. So in my view short sequence numbers are more of a bug than a feature, and not supporting them in DCCP-UDP is the better solution.Ok, this is fair reasoning. But still, as a matter of design principle, I think it is a little unusual that when receiving a packet for a protocol, the receiver would need to consider what was the previous header in order to parse the current protocol header. Ideally one might want to use the same DCCP implementation regardless of whether the packets go inside IP or UDP. But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
[JM]: I personally don't like to idea that the DCCP header is changed when it goes through UDP encapsulation. Otherwise we are not talking anymore about just simply UDP encapsulation but rather about a whole new protocol. So the WG should either consider
a) straight UDP encapsulation of DCCP (DCCP specific or generic? that is the question), or
b) a new UDP-based DCCP-like protocol, as this draft proposes. But you shouldn't say that this draft is point a, which it is not. Regards, Jukka