Le 16 nov. 2011 à 10:26, Ole Troan a écrit : > Remi, et al, > >> In the Softwire meeting of Monday, the key argument against the 4rd unified >> approach (4rd-U) was that *Because checksum neutrality of addresses is part >> of 4rd-U, it would allegedly cause "address spreading" (addresses used >> between a pair of hosts would vary)*. >> You had a slide asserting it, and the argument was taken as granted, and >> important, in verbal comments from Mark Townsley and Dave Thaler. >> I forcefully declared that this was technically false. >> Since no time has been granted to explain, I invited anyone in doubt to >> contact me for explanations. >> Thanks for having taken the time to do it. >> >> Following our discussion of yesterday, I think you now understand that, as I >> said: >> - *TCP/UDP checksum neutrality of addresses DOES NOT interfere in any way >> with stability of addresses between host pairs*. > > acknowledged. as far as I can understand the checksum neutrality proposal > will work, and it will result in stable addresses. > two flows between two hosts will have the same addresses. and there is no > "destination spread" with this mechanism. > > apologies for the uncertainty and confusion created by questioning this.
No problem left on this. >> - Consequently, the key argument of the meeting against 4rd-U is invalid. > > that I disagree with. there were multiple arguments. No contradiction here either: I just wished it to be known by the group that the "key" objection is now understood to be invalid. I do agree that other objections you list in your email, despite their being much less decisive AFAIK, deserve to be seriously discussed. I will comment them in a separate response. Thanks, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
