On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi, > > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> During the Hiroshima meeting last week some support (and some concerns) was >> voiced about working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP, with a suggestion to >> allocate an UDP port to be used for DCCP encapsulation. To make this happen, >> it was proposed that we bring back draft-phelan-dccp-natencap, for the WG to >> submit it for Experimental RFC. Tom has now updated the draft and the >> refreshed version can be found at >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-03 >> >> With the above background in mind, I'm now looking for input on the >> following questions: >> >> a) in your opinion, should the DCCP WG start working on UDP encapsulation >> for DCCP? > > Yes, absolutely, and I agree with Michael. Not only for NAT traversal, but if you want to run DCCP on nodes which do not support it in the OS and you can not open a raw socket. This is at least an experience from running SCTP on the iPhone/iPodTouch...
Best regards Michael > > >> b) if yes, do you think draft-phelan-dccp-natencap is a good starting point >> for this, and therefore should become a WG document? > > Yes! > > >> In addition, please speak up if you have other technical comments about the >> draft. > > I hope I'm not re-iterating an old discussion here, and apologize if I am - > but I think that the partial checksum extension header should also include > the UDP header, because it is applied when the UDP header > checksum is zero - which means that there is no other ckecksum applied > on the UDP header... DCCP could, and probably should, make up for that. > > I think it would also make sense to define usage of UDP-Lite, especially > when the DCCP checksum stuff is used > > Cheers, > Michael > >
