Re: [nbs] [Int-area] New draft related to name-based sockets

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 12/9/2010 11:06 AM, Pete McCann wrote:
> Hi, Joe,
>
> Thanks for the issue list and the pointers to drafts.
>
> I agree that backwards compatibility is an issue, if we are blindly
> opening connections to previously unknown peers.  However, in
> the pickle packet framework, opening a connection would always
> be preceded by a DNS lookup for the TXT record at
> _pickle.host.example.com which, if present, would be an indication
> that the peer supports the new extensions.  So, I think there is
> little danger of running into the issues you cite.
>
> You might say that this is equivalent to defining a new transport,
> but I think it's important to keep the protocol number 6 because
> that is what today's middleboxes will pass.

But they won't. The read more than you think, including options. ;-(

Protocol 6 is an entire protocol, not just the default. If you want 
something inside that, you need to include framing.

However, this option is useful only in the SYN, IMO - as portnames 
pointed out. And that's the place where NATs are most problematic 
(stripping data, etc.).

On a separate point, _pickle.host.example.com presumes that _pickle is a 
transport, which it really isn't. Take a look at the SRV record specs, 
and the pending docs on that issue; I don't know what others feel about 
that, but that might a sticking point as well.

Joe