> From: Francis Dupont <[email protected]>
> the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
> which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
packet?
I'm told by some people that UDP-Lite isn't a standard yet? Or is it? (It
seems to have a protocol number issued?) Does UDP-Lite work through NAT
boxes? (LISP has a mobile-node mode, which we would like to see work through
NAT boxes, so any proposed alternative solution has to work through NAT boxes
too.)
Other ideas?
Also, hosts aren't an issue - and in fact it's a _feature_ that hosts will
discard any LISP packets they see (for having bad checksums).
> From: Shane Amante <[email protected]>
> this is the first "iteration" of LISP, there may be 'natural' points in
> the LISP evolution path ... where it makes sense to consider evolving
> the encapsulation
Excellent point. We have indeed already considered deploying other
encapsulations, e.g. for use over MPLS.
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]>
> there isn't that much IPv6 traffic in the first place ...
> So the lack of a fine-grained optimal solution to the load balancing
> issue is not a problem in practice.
Is it your prediction for the near (i.e. 2-3 year) future that this level of
traffic will continue to be the case, operationally?
Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
