Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

How about the destination ports need to match and we don't worry as much about the source ports? If we have to have specify both the udp and dccp destination port, I have no idea how existing applications are going to be able to easily use this. What would you even put in a DNS SRV record. 

On Mar 3, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

> Hi Cullen,
> 
> (cc:ing dccp mailing list as well)
> 
> The dccp/udp port issues were discussed in the DCCP WG some time ago. With the source port one problem is that a NAT could change the UDP port but not the inner DCCP port. There were opinions for keeping the two port spaces separate, to support tunneling scenarios through a well-known UDP port at the server end.
> 
> - Pasi
> 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
>> I'm wondering what would be the downside of saying the UDP source / dest port had to match the DCCP source and dest port?  This would make it much easier to figure out hot to integrate this into something like ICE or decide what UDP and DCCP ports one uses for a URL like sip:example.com:5060
>