[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dccp] Soliciting input on UDP encapsulation for DCCP
On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> During the Hiroshima meeting last week some support (and some concerns) was voiced about working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP, with a suggestion to allocate an UDP port to be used for DCCP encapsulation. To make this happen, it was proposed that we bring back draft-phelan-dccp-natencap, for the WG to submit it for Experimental RFC. Tom has now updated the draft and the refreshed version can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-03
>>
>> With the above background in mind, I'm now looking for input on the following questions:
>>
>> a) in your opinion, should the DCCP WG start working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP?
>
> Yes, absolutely, and
I agree with Michael. Not only for NAT traversal, but if you want to run DCCP on
nodes which do not support it in the OS and you can not open a raw socket.
This is at least an experience from running SCTP on the iPhone/iPodTouch...
Best regards
Michael
>
>
>> b) if yes, do you think draft-phelan-dccp-natencap is a good starting point for this, and therefore should become a WG document?
>
> Yes!
>
>
>> In addition, please speak up if you have other technical comments about the draft.
>
> I hope I'm not re-iterating an old discussion here, and apologize if I am -
> but I think that the partial checksum extension header should also include
> the UDP header, because it is applied when the UDP header
> checksum is zero - which means that there is no other ckecksum applied
> on the UDP header... DCCP could, and probably should, make up for that.
>
> I think it would also make sense to define usage of UDP-Lite, especially
> when the DCCP checksum stuff is used
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>