Re: [Softwires] Checksum neutrality and L4-protocol independence

Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fibrib@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E531921E800E for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNnztka-BtOf for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4974C21E803E for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so3759783qaf.10 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XFG64PbutQ6yOI7wbDPxO7q+1IspTYTkNTPhdLJhsww=; b=s08c7XysS87ra4n5Dz91yyUNM7eMqQ+vCoVArDAHdtmk+4J4Dc/twY6RYb9Ss3FDr1 Zk78I/5MeWNwZWvZM2VhxkaGiJ/B95vGcJTLjOGryPzEZGqVyo0nrEHQVC0o7piJnJTu E/kuOfA7/ztsS/ASQ/QmYoeP9RtqZ7xxJ91lA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.77.12 with SMTP id e12mr394320qck.41.1329355010852; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.11.144 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:16:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAuHL_Cj319Rf1oNAAM5FmUsTxFNOLrJDAoXn9JErJvfKbvLkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net> <3AAD65F3-5169-49B7-9698-E820EF419B35@employees.org> <53ACB4FC-988F-443C-A936-1CA5B13180EB@free.fr> <C694D7DC-2F98-434F-8123-751E2C1A98D0@employees.org> <081C7074-F5E2-46B7-B2C8-E033F3E5BC15@laposte.net> <B94D39A0-CA66-4AE6-BDC5-E4DFA2D47BEC@employees.org> <A8A6FDA2-0FFC-44D2-BEDF-29FB012D3113@laposte.net> <4749FAFA-A522-4795-9B8A-9AA4B030E075@employees.org> <C38B2AD1-08F1-4ECD-8ADB-AE88BC34A0B9@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqW+RrHKYJbgLBSbm3RebQWcr6oMZRcCwbv3_QR13MLV1Q@mail.gmail.com> <9FD6B92C-9B42-4A30-9FF5-30A86F845E72@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqVygJv4k_zHsyccL-W3x_=tcaWe61_BoHheyN6p-FH5rA@mail.gmail.com> <8D2093C7-EC77-4CBA-9E4B-E4BEB3F74A26@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqWFiY+5oHucg83mAG3b3EW-xvjhoPTux_fUqfnp2Ee_Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAuHL_Cj319Rf1oNAAM5FmUsTxFNOLrJDAoXn9JErJvfKbvLkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:16:50 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqW5zawd9to7zFUXYkJy66YTSoLsR4BfyRHRkUeXG4nEYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: Washam Fan <washam.fan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00235429e11c33c66b04b90a9526
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Checksum neutrality and L4-protocol independence
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:16:52 -0000

2012/2/15 Washam Fan <washam.fan@gmail.com>

> Hi Maoke,
>
> Just one point. Please see inline.
>
> > i don't think MAP standard have nor should have such a limitation. A
> > MAP-compliant device supports UDP, TCP, DCCP, SCTP today, with the same
> > logic, and will support any emerging L4 protocol in the future, again
> with
> > the same logic. requiring L4 checksum update for any supported protocol
> > makes it a stable standard, and the checksum update logic is stable for
> any
> > protocol. in 4rd-U, however, with the R-22 (3), today it can support UDP,
> > TCP, DCCP and SCTP-variant(? not sure due to lack of personal knowledge),
> > while if tomorrow we have a new protocol XXXP:
>
> Please keep in mind both MAP and 4rd-U are transition techniques, from
> a long-term perspective, they might disappear before any new L4
> protocol invented;)
>

good point! but, ... if they are really transition-able ;) i am not so
optimistic.

on the other hand, the thread is talking on whether BR needs to be changed
or not for new L4 protocol. ;-)

best,
maoke


>
> washam
>