On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 31 jul 2009, at 9:06, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Sounds like this would require a third datagram protocol number, that
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... ?
UDP ultra-lite: no length, no checksum, just port numbers.
This is sort of like the UDP-TT proposal, except for the part where
UDP-TT overloads the UDP next-header type, hard-codes the length to 8
and includes a checksum of the IP and UDP headers (which is fixed
value per flow)...
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
