CC maprg
On 2016-03-10, at 18:29, Poscic, Kristian (Nokia - US)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any info on the percentage of UDP packets with zero-checksum
> for IPv4 packets in today’s networks (enterprise, internet, any network).
> Seems like there is not a whole lot of info about this
Sorry, please disregard. I need coffee.
Lars
On 2015-6-26, at 13:17, Lucy yong wrote:
>
> Lars,
>
> I am confused by your comment. This thread is about GRE encapsulation over
> IPv6 network. Not about UDP encapsulation.
>
> Lucy
>
> -Original Message-
>
Hi,
the UDP checksum field is not a codepoint to exchange configuration information
in.
In other words, zero has been a special case since the first specification of
UDP. But all other values cannot be overloaded to have special meaning.
Lars
On 2015-6-25, at 15:59, Lucy yong wrote:
>
> Ron
Hi Brandon,
On 2014-7-31, at 21:14, Brandon Williams wrote:
> Has your read of RFC6967 been presented as the general int-area consensus in
> past discussions about the RFC? Or would there be some value in probing the
> list a bit more on the topic?
my takeaway from the RFC as certainly has not
Hi,
I wanted to repeat my comment from the meeting. Given that at least in my read
of RFC6967, there exist to sane mechanism to even exchange host IDs across the
network, I don't really see why INTAREA should spend any more time on this
space.
Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
Hi,
On Aug 7, 2013, at 22:18, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
wrote:
> In other words, noting S5.3 of RFC 3168 in draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu does
> not add as compared to not noting it -- the requirement already exists, and
> is applicable to any frag/reassembly, including GRE, any other tunnel,
Hi,
On Aug 6, 2013, at 19:34, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Section 5.3 of RFC 3168 specifies procedures for handling the ECN bit when
> reassembling fragmented packets. These rules must be observed by any device
> that reassembles fragmented packets, including tunnel egress routers. It
> would be re
Hi,
On Jul 29, 2012, at 23:41, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Could be more explict and explain what is missing in
> draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02 to reach that stage?
the goal of this draft was to survey the options. I don't think it should make
any recommendation at all.
I
On Jul 27, 2012, at 0:09, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> The argument I heard in Paris meeting for including a recommendation is to
> help vendors to select the solution to implement in their devices. They can
> not provide the same feature using 8 implementation options. That argument
>
On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:26, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On 7/9/2012 4:41 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>> The TCP option is another good way to include the HOST ID in case of TCP
>> and UDP communications.
>
> Surely there's a typo there, since it does not work at all in the
> case of UDP.
>
> I disagree with the
On Jul 5, 2012, at 22:48, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> With the changes to this draft in the -02 version, I'm having a little
> trouble seeing its purpose. It basically now seems like a shell for the
> recommendation in 3.3, with the analysis stuffed into appendices. But given
> that there is no stabl
Hi,
shouldn't we at the same time also be making the RFCs that originally
registered these option numbers Historic?
Lars
On Jun 11, 2012, at 19:57, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Here is a new draft about formally obsoleting some IPv4 options that
> are not being used in practice. The dra
Hi,
On Mar 5, 2012, at 23:31, Naiming Shen wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> 8. IANA Considerations
>>>
>>> The IANA is requested to assign a well-known port number, Trace-Ping
>>> Port, for the UDP and TCP of this Trace-Ping
Hi,
> 8. IANA Considerations
>
>The IANA is requested to assign a well-known port number, Trace-Ping
>Port, for the UDP and TCP of this Trace-Ping extensions.
I'm curious why you think you need a port number for this ping extension. Ping
is a diagnostic procedure that can be used with
14 matches
Mail list logo
