The actual encoding of the packets into UDP is the simple part. The difficult part is to get the rest to work since you have to combine it with a protocol that offers the end-to-end connectivity and to get the rest to work.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 14 feb 2008, at 21:21, Dan Wing wrote: > > >> What seems useful is a mechanism where the UDP encapsulation can be >> attempted and the native (non-UDP encapsulted) protocol can be >> attempted. >> > > I was thinking along similar lines. Notwithstanding what I said > earlier, sometimes encapsulating something in UDP to make it pass > through whathever needs passing through can be useful. For instance, > there have been one or two occasions where I could have used IPv6 in > UDP encapsulation but without all the baggage that comes with Teredo. > > But it seems to me that a much better approach to this is first of all > to make it optional, like you suggest, and secondly, make it a generic > mechanism that can be used for ALL protocols rather that define it > separately for one protocol at a time. > > In essence, something like this would increase the address lenght by > 16 bits. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
