[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP

To: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:59:33 -0800
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Routing Research Group list <rrg@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <53338319-AC30-4A02-BD41-9D3FBCF7E4E1@cisco.com>
References: <413ED4A0-63FD-47B7-9932-54C1E2B8AB19@muada.com> <53338319-AC30-4A02-BD41-9D3FBCF7E4E1@cisco.com>

This way, the checksum issue goes away and we also get to save 8bytes per packet.
Sounds like a really bad tradeoff to me.

And by the way, UDP-Lite is actually heavier (for routers) than UDPwith checksum of 0. So I feel UDP-Lite is not an option.

Dino

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
  - From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>

References:
- [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
  - From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
Next by Date: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
Previous by thread: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
Next by thread: Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread