I think it is feasible, but I haven't looked too hard into whether people want
to achieve this, and what the impact is on the control plane.
Greg Daley
-----Original Message-----
From: l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
[mailto:l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 10:33 PM
To: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; Greg Daley;
jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating
MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
RFC 6773. which requires a full udp checksum for nat traversal.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
[stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 31 January 2014 10:50
To: Greg Daley; 'Noel Chiappa'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating
MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
On 30/01/2014 22:44, Greg Daley wrote:
Of course, in order to get the protocols to pass legacy firewall
inspection, UDP encapsulation may be required, and companies would
have to actually implement the protocol... Greg Daley
gdaley(_at_)au(_dot_)logicalis(_dot_)com
So UDP/DCCP/MPLS ?
Stewart