If the parsing change were dramatic or expensive I'd be less happy about
eliding the DCCP ports. But the DCCP ports are just the first 4 bytes
of the DCCP header, making it very easy to pop ports on for parsing and
pop them off for encapsulating.
E
On 12/20/10 1:50 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
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.
I'm also supportive of using UDP ports in the 4-tuple, and ignore the DCCP
ports. I wouldn't so much like the idea of defining a different DCCP header for
UDP encapsulation, even if it saved a few bytes (just to avoid separate packet
parsers).
With a shared UDP port at the server, this would mean that the service codes
come to good use (which might be worth emphasizing in the text).
- Pasi
