On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:32:46 -0800
Guy Harris wrote:
> LINKTYPE_IP_PAYLOAD, or something such as that, with a link-layer
> (pseudo-)header containing:
I'm happy with that as a name.
> an indication of whether the network-layer addresses are IPv4
> or IPv6;
>
> source address;
>
>
"Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" wrote:
> I wonder though, whether the flags could be combined with the IP
> version field, given as the version in the underlying (real) IP packet
> anyway is only a 4-bit field.
> 1 byte | Flags and IP version:
> bit7 [ ...W ] bit0
> VV
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:57:53 -0500
Michael Richardson wrote:
> > It does momentarily seem wasteful to repeat the
> > source/destination information in every single packet
> > (especially in the case of IPv6 with its 256bits of addressing
> > information). Though I don't know if th
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:57:53 -0500
Michael Richardson wrote:
> > It does momentarily seem wasteful to repeat the
> > source/destination information in every single packet
> > (especially in the case of IPv6 with its 256bits of addressing
> > information). Though I don't know if th
>Eventually, we'll be using this format to debug multi-path TCP, in which case
>the IP addresses (and maybe even the IP4/IP6-ness of it) might change.
Also there exists SCTP, which implements the concept of variable (0..65535)
number of "streams" for each direction of an "association" between a
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 18:19, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
>
>> Eventually, we'll be using this format to debug multi-path TCP, in which
>> case
>> the IP addresses (and maybe even the IP4/IP6-ness of it) might change.
>
> Also there exists SCTP, which implements the concept of variable (0..65535)
>
On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Michael Tuexen
wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 18:19, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually, we'll be using this format to debug multi-path TCP, in which
>>> case
>>> the IP addresses (and maybe even the IP4/IP6-ness of it) might change.
>>
>> Also there exist
