IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Tue, 13 March 2012 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 B877F21F8892 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 gFPm5drxphL7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout.laposte.net (smtpout3.laposte.net [193.253.67.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB78A21F888B for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] ([88.166.221.144]) by mwinf8506-out with ME id l1yA1i00E37Y3f4031yBd6; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:58:13 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-112--994909994"
From: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFUBMqVT=E=GqBG_-q458GCpYKLk66vuvE-cx81=eTdgyUbj7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:58:11 +0100
Message-Id: <D1EF9447-336A-48B4-91F4-D514654AC93D@laposte.net>
References: <B509CB1C-4A0A-408B-9B4A-C0F847169431@juniper.net> <2AB8570A-644F-4792-8C56-44AD80A79234@laposte.net> <D6428903-FBA0-419C-A37F-A00874F28118@laposte.net> <CAM+vMERsVz7cuC1C52gw12wySaEgw8=44JjS8AUygj0vJ899Cg@mail.gmail.com> <DDD20574-4ECD-4285-BB15-548628FB0425@laposte.net> <CAM+vMETahum9rB+fr=OHAmVobDZSzRRy9mUwkjryhqRvaJWe-Q@mail.gmail.com> <35065EB3-D4D6-451B-ACED-67BB94C77F18@laposte.net> <CAAuHL_D68nkd36ifLzEeVR67Q124VH-pMhM1pkEE_PcLbGxBrw@mail.gmail.com> <14D90642-0478-4AB9-91AA-A3E0310197F2@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqX9dj8MSeZdJTic5iOT=Jjg4oihWs30FWVAca08v_3=7g@mail.gmail.com> <D476AFD2-3B6B-48A0-971D-C65CC2CFA46B@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqU1wtP5prSaLG8hDSuv-EGWP5Diqoj6WEMHb_q8hNVDdQ@mail.gmail.com> <4BA560D3-5D48-4911-BDCB-D9CB490FBBA1@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqVzbtZ7JxunHv7m1zgWjRa2sh7zZS+91aURAy8-xTZW8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUBMqXPAA7RjCzgvbuq0WqbKijXwuFebnmrL-zDx_XoZh=Xkg@mail.gmail.com> <FED38071-241D-480C-9A8A-CFA7A55A4F3B@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqUqoEnNouOJzc2Z3iziQsCvqXDNjA 9NtN94kGQnsay0LA@mail.gmail.com> <1A6C1DA5-A352-4BF7-8553-453327902619@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqWv2V2PnZg5iTSuT6Jdbtredzj-4GPuS4VHqpDG+aP4dA@mail.gmail.com> <A4A7C9E3-DBA9-4AA5-A60B-E3D3A187BD7F@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqVT=E=GqBG_-q458GCpYKLk66vuvE-cx81=eTdgyUbj7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:58:17 -0000

2012-03-13 12:02, Maoke :
> 2012/3/13 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
...
>> The 4rd mechanism is for protocols that have ports at their usual place (all existing protocols that have ports have them at the same place, even if using another checksum algorithm like SCTP).

> 
> may you have a check on the statement of "all existing protocols" again? i noticed RFC908/RFC1151. sorry if that are not a transport protocol over IP. 

I missed this one.
None of the proposed stateless solutions supports it, but it remains that you are right: it has ports at a different place.
Thanks for this info.

RD

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email