Hi John,
On 26/02/09 05:25 PM, John Zwiebel wrote:
On Feb 26, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
If the checksum was there, the packet would not be passed on to a
wrong application (the app listening on port 2280) and probably be
interpreted wrongly as payload for that application. Ima
On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
On 26/02/09 03:34 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
I had a quick glance over the draft and I am not convinced that it
will handle a certain class of errors.
Hi Marshall,
On 26/02/09 03:34 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
I had a quick glance over the draft and I am not convinced that it
will handle a certain class of errors.
Consider that the UDP header of the encapsulating IP
Hello;
On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Marshall,
I had a quick glance over the draft and I am not convinced that it
will handle a certain class of errors.
Consider that the UDP header of the encapsulating IPv6 packet gets
corrupted and the destination port gets cha
Hi Marshall,
I had a quick glance over the draft and I am not convinced that it
will handle a certain class of errors.
Consider that the UDP header of the encapsulating IPv6 packet gets
corrupted and the destination port gets changed to say 2280 from the AMT
port (2268). This error will nev
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:35:18 -0500
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I haven't seen any discussion of this on this list - there has been
> some on MBONED.
>
> So far, we have as users for this flexibility
>
> AMT (the original need)
>
> LISP and
>
> (According to Dave Thaler) maybe UDP-ESP (RF
