Le lundi 3 août 2009 23:17:10 Margaret Wasserman, vous avez écrit : (...) > So, we have two standards-compliant alternatives in IPv6 that would > not require you to calculate a UDP checksum on the entire payload: > > (1) UDP-Lite: Is there a reason why UDP-Lite isn't a reasonable > choice for LISP encapsulation? When we looked into this for CAPWAP > (another IP-in-UDP/IP tunneling case), we found that UDP-Lite would > meet our needs for IPv6, so we did not need to specify the use of zero > UDP checksums.
You would expect 64-translators to convert UDP-Lite/IPv6 into UDP-Lite/IPv4 and back. Converting UDP-Lite/IPv6-with-8-bytes-coverage into UDP/IPv4- without-checksum sounds hackish :( > (2) IP-in-IPv6: Why do you need the UDP encapsulation at all in > IPv6? In IPv4, you may need it for NAT traversal, but it is not clear > that NATs will work the same way in IPv6. Or are there other reasons > why you need the UDP encapsulation? (...) Same problem. 64-translators would translate IP-in-IPv6 to IPIP and vice versa. IPIP does not go through NATs. That's why I was trying to suggest defining a new UDP-Lite-like transport protocol that would only be allowed over IPv6 and that 64-translator would convert into checksum-less UDP/IPv4. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
