A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-NAT)
Hi Tom,
Here are some personal (no hats on) comments on the draft:
Have the benefits vs. disadvantages of defining a different DCCP
header for UDP encapsulation been discussed earlier? The current
method saves some redundant header space, but may add to
implementation complexity in the DCCP side
Hi Pasi,
See inline...
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: DCCP working group
> Cc: Phelan, Tom
> Subject: Fwd: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
>
&
Hi Pasi,
See inline...
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:15 PM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
>
&g
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
Have the benefits vs. disadvantages of defining a different DCCP
header for UDP encapsulation been discussed earlier? The current
method saves some redundant header space, but may add to
implementation complexity in the DCCP side. I can't say if thi
On 04/07/2010 09:02 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
Have the benefits vs. disadvantages of defining a different DCCP
header for UDP encapsulation been discussed earlier? The current
method saves some redundant header space, but may add to
implementatio
On 7 Apr 2010, at 19:02, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
Have the benefits vs. disadvantages of defining a different DCCP
header for UDP encapsulation been discussed earlier? The current
method saves some redundant header space, but may add to
implementation
On 7 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Phelan, Tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:54 PM
To: DCCP working group
Cc: Phelan, Tom
Subject: Fwd: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
...
* worth considering a
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Pasi Sarolahti; DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
>
> On 7 Apr 2010
[mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:55 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Pasi Sarolahti; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
On 7 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Phelan, Tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@ik
ulated initially (with SA =
A).
What am I missing?
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jukka Manner [mailto:jukka.man...@tkk.fi]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:21 PM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf
culated initially (with SA =
A).
What am I missing?
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Manner [mailto:jukka.man...@tkk.fi]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:21 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
DC
, 2010 12:58 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
>
> Yes, that's right. Except that GUT itself recalculates the checksum
> before the packet hits the DCCP receiver. Thus, the UDP-encapsu
.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Manner [mailto:jukka.man...@tkk.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:58 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
Yes, that's right. Except that GUT itself recalculate
> >>>> DCCP wouldn't need to care about checksums if we had a generic
> >>>> encapsulation scheme, such as the one we have been discussing on
> > the
> >>> TSV
> >>>> list, the Generic UDP Tunneling scheme GUT.
> >>>>
group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
No, because the outer UDP checksum protects the tunneled part, right?
Jukka
On 04/13/2010 05:28 PM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
Hi Jukka,
Are you saying that the receiving GUT recalculates the DCCP
checksum?
But the only effect that
On 4/8/10 3:16 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:
[JM]: I personally don't like to idea that the DCCP header is changed
when it goes through UDP encapsulation. Otherwise we are not talking
anymore about just simply UDP encapsulation but rather about a whole new
protocol. So the WG should either consider
a
On 19 May 2010, at 15:55, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
On 4/8/10 3:16 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:
[JM]: I personally don't like to idea that the DCCP header is changed
when it goes through UDP encapsulation. Otherwise we are not talking
anymore about just simply UDP encapsulation but rather about a
wh
21, 2010 4:26 PM
> To: Andrew Lentvorski
> Cc: dccp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
>
> On 19 May 2010, at 15:55, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> > On 4/8/10 3:16 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:
> >> [JM]: I personally don't like
19 matches
Mail list logo
