Re: [v6tc] Issue 1: Could we live with UDP encapsulation always on?

>From Alain:
> Obviously the first thing to consider is the UDP overhead. When the 
> payload is large, there isn't much difference, but when it is small, 
> there is a non negligible impact.

What I'd be interested in knowing here is whether the typical UDP 
header compression algorithms fix this problem automatically in those 
deployments where the extra bytes are important.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Byte-wise you could easily 'live' with UDP encaps btw. Especially as
> proto-41 is non-authenticated and very spoof sensitive, oh hmm so is the
> protocol which is proposed in the new draft. AYIYA, which looks somewhat
> quite like the proposed protocol, does not have this issue btw...
> With people downloading movies etc, do 3 bytes per packet extra hurt?

The assumption is that if you want to protect the payload, you'll want 
to use a real security mechanism -- this is not the place to 
(try to) invent one.

> Why is there a checksum in that newly proposed protocol anyway?
> There was a reason why checksumming was removed from the IPv6 headers ;)

It is the standard UDP checksum.  The first two lines are the UDP 
header.

> PS: The mailinglist archives don't work...

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll raise it with the IETF 
secretariat.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
v6tc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc