On 15 Dec 2010, at 21:06, Eddie Kohler wrote: > On 12/15/2010 01:02 PM, Colin Perkins wrote: >>> The only way to avoid a 6-tuple is to REQUIRE (with a MUST) that the UDP >>> ports equal the DCCP ports. In that case, the DCCP ports would be ignored >>> on packet receipt; the UDP ports would be used for the DCCP ports as well. >>> You can then use a 4-tuple to distinguish flows. But you cannot support a >>> "default UDP port." >> >> NATs that rewrite the UDP ports but leave the UDP payload untouched would >> break this, no? > > No, they would not. Just as the encapsulated DCCP header checksum is > ignored, the encapsulated DCCP PORTS would be ignored. The receiver would > use the ports from UDP.
In that case, we should just elide the ports from the encapsulated DCCP header to avoid the confusion, if we're going to do this. Colin
