[Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification field
Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 13 April 2007 09:35 UTC
Return-path: <manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBL-0007K5-3h; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBI-0007Jt-OU for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:00 -0400
Received: from psmtp13.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBH-0005ai-G8 for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:00 -0400
Received: from Teco (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by psmtp13.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.15 (built Nov 14 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JGF00EF1JY58N@psmtp13.wxs.nl> for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:34:58 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:36:03 +0200
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: manet-dt@ietf.org
Message-id: <001d01c77daf$290af040$0202a8c0@Teco>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acd9rydWRR4SwktmRAOnEMcJZwZMYw==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: [Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification field
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
The SMF ID deviates from RFC791 for the Identification field. 791: "The originating protocol module of an internet datagram sets the identification field to a value that must be unique for that source-destination pair and protocol" SMF: "In the case that resequencing is deemed necessary, it is RECOMMENDED that sequence numbering be applied such that a different sequence number space per <sourceAddress::destinationAddress> duple be used" The difference is the protocol field. I see two options, modify SMF or add text clarifying the deviation and analyze for consequences. Or are the rules for Identification changed since 791? Teco _______________________________________________ Manet-dt mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification field Teco Boot
- [Manet-dt] RE: SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification … Teco Boot
- [Manet-dt] RE: SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification … Brian Adamson
- Re: [Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification … Brian Adamson
- RE: [Manet-dt] RE: SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identificat… Teco Boot
- RE: [Manet-dt] RE: SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identificat… Templin, Fred L