[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] The use of UDP in LISP
On 2007-12-10, at 19:17, ext Dino Farinacci wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit, please? It may be the jetlag, but I
can't follow.
Now with UDP-Lite, which we did not have to do with checksum-0-based-
UDP:
o Check on another field to determine how many bytes we have to
checksum.
o Build a pseudo-header which prepends the checksummed data.
Thanks for elaborating. Yes, there is some extra work. But assuming
LISP and other UDP tunnels will limit the UDP-Lite checksum coverage
to the minimum (i.e., just the header), things become very
lightweight. (But yes, not as lightweight as not doing any
checksumming.)
As long as LISP is a research effort, it is very free in following the
published RFCs. But as soon as we're starting to talk about
standardization, it is important that LISP follow the RFCs that define
the behavior of the protocols that it uses. (After all, you'd want
people to follow the MUST and SHOULDs in any future LISP RFCs, right?)
That pretty much leaves these options on how to go forward:
* use UDP with checksums
* use UDP-Lite with minimal checksum coverage
* push to update RFC2460, then use UDP with no checksums
* use a different protocol than UDP for tunneling
I have no preference among those four.
Lars
--
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