On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:06 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
is basically UDP except the checksum would only covering the IPv6 and
transport header. Hmmph, this is just like UDP-Lite really but it
seems
like there is opposition to overloading UDP-Lite. Then the 64-
translators
would convert it to normal UDP/IPv4... ?
Why do you think that this would be "overloading UDP-Lite"? And what
is the opposition?
We used UDP-Lite in a very similar situation in CAPWAP for very
similar reasons. We needed to be able to checksum-protect the outer
headers in an IP-in-IPv6/UDP(-ish) encapsulation, and we did not want
the encapsulator to be required to (re-)checksum the entire payload.
IMO, that is a very sound reason to use UDP-Lite, and one that has
IETF precedent in at least one standards-track RFC.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
