In message 290e20b455c66743be178c5c84f1240847e6334...@exmb01cms.surrey.ac.uk
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk writes:
That's robustness _for the tunnelled traffic_.
Not for anything else sharing the network - that hasn't been
instrumented and measured.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
The
You may care to reference this to Section 2.2 of RFC 6936, which provides
some background to where UDP-Lite may help, and some of the potential
pitfalls.
Gorry
Or perhaps UDP heavy with a FCS at the end and no checksum at all.
You do make a good point that perhaps UDP lite should be
Or perhaps UDP heavy with a FCS at the end and no checksum at all.
You do make a good point that perhaps UDP lite should be mentioned in
MPLS over UDP as an option.
Curtis
In message 290e20b455c66743be178c5c84f1240847e6334...@exmb01cms.surrey.ac.uk
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk writes:
you've got
Sent from my iPad
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:05,l.w...@surrey.ac.uk l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Stewart,
your 'I'm not in tunnel applications' suggests you've misunderstood
the argument here. The point is not to protect the tunnel traffic
(which can quite happily checksum itself), it is to
you've got the perfect application to encourage UDP lite adoption and
deployment here.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
From: Stewart Bryant [stbry...@cisco.com]
Sent: 15 January 2014 11:31
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng);
[ you insist on cc:ing me, so you get to endure my opinions ]
it seems that there are no valid statistics for the current Internet
to sustain your case.
as we discussed privately, there seem to be no real measurements to
sustain any case. this is all conjecturbation.
what i do not understand
Lloyd,
The part about RFC 6936 section 3.1 most relevant might be:
There is extensive experience with deployments using tunnel
protocols in well-managed networks (e.g., corporate networks and
service provider core networks). This has shown the robustness of
methods such as
On 1/14/2014 4:57 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I don't think sayng 'oh, that error source is no longer a problem' disproves
Stone's overall point about undetected errors, though the
examples he uses from the technology of the day are necessarily
dated. Dismissing the overall point because
On 14/01/2014 22:07, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 1/14/2014 4:57 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I don't think sayng 'oh, that error source is no longer a problem' disproves
Stone's overall point about undetected errors, though the
examples he uses from the technology of the day are necessarily
dated.
Stewart,
your 'I'm not in tunnel applications' suggests you've misunderstood
the argument here. The point is not to protect the tunnel traffic
(which can quite happily checksum itself), it is to protect everything
else on the network from misdelivery. It's not the tunnel application,
it's every
That's robustness _for the tunnelled traffic_.
Not for anything else sharing the network - that hasn't been instrumented and
measured.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
From: Curtis Villamizar [cur...@ipv6.occnc.com]
Sent: 15 January 2014 03:43
To:
11 matches
Mail list logo
