Hello, I take the freedom to move this to 6man mailing list...
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:30:54 +0100, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > Have you any comments on: > > draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-01 > > I am trying to figure-out whether this is a good thing to work further > on. Canonically, you would use UDP-Lite for this. Of course, UDP-Lite is impractical in IPv4 due to incompatible middleboxes, especially NAPTs. But as it comes to IPv6, I do not see this as a real problem with UDP-Lite over *IPv6* (contrary to IPv4). Admittedly, UDP-Lite over IPv6 will still have problem, should there be v4-v6 protocol translation (PT) on the path (I think that was Dave Thaler's counter-argument at the last meeting). I am not convinced that this is a serious case here, as it seems dubious to me that we will see UDPTT through protocol translators. But lets say we will. Then I would like to know why and how UDPTT will work better than UDP-Lite. Namely, I would like to know how UDPTT/IPv6<->checksum-free UDP/IPv4 translation is supposed to happen, why IPv4 middleboxes won't explode on the resulting packets, and how it solves the checksum performance issue. I am not in any way implying that this is possible or impossible or anything - but I think it belongs in the draft or in a companion draft thereto. Also, it might be worth to have an socket API consideration appendix... -- Rémi Denis-Courmont -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
