Re: [Spud] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 7/22/2015 5:30 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> I don't have data, but I am interested in such measurements. I
> previously proposed UDPTT, which if agreed would allow UDP-Lite-based
> behaviour for a tunnel:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-03
> 
> Maybe we should be bolder to allow UDP-Lite behaviour on the UDP
> protocol number?

I can't yet see how to do this. A key difference between udp-options and
UDP-Lite is that udp-options doesn't change the semantics of the
existing UDP checksum field - which is critical to transiting NATs (who
recompute that checksum).

We also need to add an option-area checksum for udp-options (I'm working
on that). It might be possible to use some area after the option area as
a trailing, un-protected data area too - which might do what UDP-Lite
does but in a slightly different way.

Is that what you're looking for? I'll post that change later.

Joe

> This would allow the options usage also - all/any of these would require
> some network observations to determine what actually is passable across
> a path and what are the actual sideffects. RFC 6936 discussed potential
> failures, but presents no data.
> 
> Gorry
> 
> On 22/07/2015 08:22, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> hi Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for this draft; I appreciate the elegant redundancy-reducing
>> length hack. :)
>>
>> Data in this case is, I know, hard to come by, but would you have any
>> feel for how much stuff out there will just break when they see an
>> inconsistency between IP and UDP length information?
>>
>> Thanks, cheers,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>> On 22 Jul 2015, at 00:12, Joe Touch<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> FYI. Minor changes for clarification.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:04:46 -0700
>>> From: [e-mail]
>>> To: Dr. Joseph D. Touch<[e-mail]>du>, Joe Touch<[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>>
>>> Name:        draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options
>>> Revision:    01
>>> Title:        Transport Options for UDP
>>> Document date:    2015-07-21
>>> Group:        Individual Submission
>>> Pages:        8
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01.txt
>>>
>>> Status:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options/
>>> Htmlized:      
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-01
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header
>>>    options. This document experimentally extends UDP to provide a
>>>    location, syntax, and semantics for transport layer options.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>>>