----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au>
> To: C. M. Heard <he...@pobox.com>; IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate")
>
> Hi,
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: C. M. Heard <he...@pobox.com>
>> To: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 3:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate")
>>
<snip>
>> - generic transport encapsulation within UDP (suggested to me
>> off-list by Mark Smith, based on a draft by Stuart Cheshire
>> et. al.).
>>
>
> For those on the list, the draft I mentioned was :
>
> Encapsulation of TCP and other Transport Protocols over UDP
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-tcp-over-udp-00
>
>
> Note that this basically proposes translating the TCP header into UDP header
> fields, and then for the missing fields, appending them after the UDP header.
> I
> was a bit confused by what was proposed, until I thought about a web server
> specifically listening on UDP port 80, knowing that UDP port 80 is TCP over
> UDP,
> and then decoding the UDP fields and subsequent fields as a TCP header.
>
>
And actually to better clarify, my (quick) suggestion was to put fragmentation
fields after the UDP header, similar to how that draft places the TCP fields
after the UDP header.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
