Not a bad idea; also saves a couple bytes.
Eddie
On 12/15/2010 01:20 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 15 Dec 2010, at 21:06, Eddie Kohler wrote:
On 12/15/2010 01:02 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
The only way to avoid a 6-tuple is to REQUIRE (with a MUST) that the UDP ports equal the
DCCP ports. In that case, the DCCP ports would be ignored on packet receipt; the UDP
ports would be used for the DCCP ports as well. You can then use a 4-tuple to
distinguish flows. But you cannot support a "default UDP port."
NATs that rewrite the UDP ports but leave the UDP payload untouched would break
this, no?
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.
Colin
