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
