IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi> Thu, 03 March 2011 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634623A69A2; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJcDRtOunEKZ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713E43A69A1; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCAB1E132; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:48:48 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rlsNctpipPOg; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:48:44 +0200 (EET)
Received: from pc74.netlab.hut.fi (pc74.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.74]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47E701E0C0; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:48:44 +0200 (EET)
Subject: Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <375_1299101583_ZZ0LHG00G4S972T0.00_640EB785-03DD-41BA-ABB5-C490556C63FB@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:48:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20328115-B657-407F-B1D5-CF292B440855@iki.fi>
References: <9610_1298631433_ZZ0LH600GE26F708.00_9847_1298631427_4D678B03_9847_2510_1_51F3C3D7-3CA1-4A4E-AAF3-A526F253B497@iki.fi> <0F4E2D93-F132-4FE8-AF69-8313A0B0BD69@iki.fi> <375_1299101583_ZZ0LHG00G4S972T0.00_640EB785-03DD-41BA-ABB5-C490556C63FB@cisco.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: 'dccp' working group <dccp@ietf.org>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:47:45 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email