-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Carlos Pignataro wrote:
...
> What about using the Ident field in the IP header instead of
> source port?
>
> I think it's a nice idea ! It makes for a solution for all transports,
> but the implication of using only df=1 probes might be too constraining?
There are numerous problems with this approach.
1) the ID field cannot be assumed for IPv6
2) under current rules, the ID field cannot be repeated for 2MSL (RFC791)
how do you ensure that your fragment ID generator avoids
values used for UDP traceroutes?
3) there is a proposed change to 791 that would deprecate the use of the
ID field if the packet cannot fragment
(draft-touch-intarea-ipv4-unique-id-00)
Can we please stop overloading the value of header fields?
Jo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkksMVAACgkQE5f5cImnZruEJQCg4jMTpzz8SAJRRHNdMvnyIY84
8BUAnA7s4/ENDe+w/BsfPtgjZHZ8Iq4u
=kerx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
