[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-03 - 6-tuple



If the parsing change were dramatic or expensive I'd be less happy about eliding the DCCP ports. But the DCCP ports are just the first 4 bytes of the DCCP header, making it very easy to pop ports on for parsing and pop them off for encapsulating.

E


On 12/20/10 1:50 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

No, they would not.  Just as the encapsulated DCCP header checksum is ignored, the encapsulated DCCP PORTS would be ignored.  The receiver would use the ports from UDP.

In that case, we should just elide the ports from the encapsulated DCCP header to avoid the confusion, if we're going to do this.

I'm also supportive of using UDP ports in the 4-tuple, and ignore the DCCP ports. I wouldn't so much like the idea of defining a different DCCP header for UDP encapsulation, even if it saved a few bytes (just to avoid separate packet parsers).

With a shared UDP port at the server, this would mean that the service codes come to good use (which might be worth emphasizing in the text).

- Pasi



[Kernel List]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Linux Resources]

Powered by Linux