Le mardi 4 août 2009 22:01:01 Margaret Wasserman, vous avez écrit : > 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"?
Gorry Fairhurst does, not me. UDP-Lite was specified for damage-tolerant payloads, not to avoid redumdant checksums. Personally, I don't care. > And what is the opposition? The only (valid) argument that I remember against UDP-Lite was lack of compatibility with IPv4 NAT/firewall in case the flow would go through a NAT64. This was a comment from Dave Thaler in SF. Admittedly, it was about AMT, not LISP. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
