Nejc Škoberne wrote, on 08/23/2011 07:00 PM: >> Yes, we've been discussing this internally among co-authors of >> draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping. The conclusion was that the transport >> checksum does not need to be modified. > > OK. But this then means, that if there are any stateful devices like stateful > firewalls, IPS/IDS systems in between, we could have problems, right?
Right. This would need to be mentioned as well. >> A consequence is that the 4rd address >> scheme does not need to care about checksum neutrality (contrary to e.g. >> NAT64 >> and NAT66). > > Sorry, but I don't understand this. Can you please paraphrase? Please refer to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052#section-4.1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296#section-2.6 Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
