I am relatively neutral on this. A 4-tuple is cleaner. I worry that a
6-tuple would be a pretty major disincentive for kernel implementations
of DCCP-over-UDP. (Perhaps Gerrit has some feedback.) I slightly
prefer a 4-tuple for this reason.
Eddie
On 1/10/11 6:36 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
On Jan 3, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
~ Following the WGLC there was debate on the 4/6-Tuple and how this would work
with different UDP and DCCP port values. As I see it, the current proposal is
to eliminate the 6-Tuple text and use only the outer UDP ports for
demultiplexing.
If I understand what's proposed correctly, I don't think this would be a good
idea. The ability to have a well-known UDP port on which tunnelled DCCP
connections can be accepted seems important to me; as does the ability to run a
server accessible via UDP and native DCCP listening on the same port, also
accessible via tunnelled DCCP. Neither of these are possible if we use only the
outer UDP ports.
Fair point.
The latest discussion started to wander off from discussing the
benefits/disadvantages of using the UDP/IP 4-tuple instead of 6-tuple, but I
don't recall anyone really opposing the 6-tuple text. Is someone strictly
against the 6-tuple model, or do we have rough consensus of sticking with the
current text in the draft? (with editorial changes as suggested in earlier
mails)
- Pasi
