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 to idea that the DCCP header is
changed
when it goes through UDP
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
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-encapsulated
DCCP flow never needs to do
.
-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, at 15:14, Phelan, Tom wrote:
-Original
...@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...@iki.fi]
Sent
=
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
DCCP wouldn't need
=
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
DCCP wouldn't need to care about
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
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
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
Hi Tom,
Here are some personal
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
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)
12 matches
Mail list logo
