Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 23:32:50 +0000

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 10:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Greg Daley; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> 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 [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> [[email-masked]]
> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:50
> To: Greg Daley; 'Noel Chiappa'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 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
> > [email-masked]
> So UDP/DCCP/MPLS ?
> 
> Stewart