On 03/28/12 12:43, Ole Trøan wrote:
There's a reason NPTv6 and NAT64 chose checksum neutrality...
NAT64??
Yup. RFC 6052 section 4.
as in "We considered reserving 16
bits in the suffix to guarantee checksum neutrality, but declined"
No, as in:
- The well-known prefix is intentionally checksum-neutral.
- Network-specific prefixes can be chosen so that translation is
checksum-neutral.
(thus no need to do it in the suffix, as you quoted above)
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
