nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:46:05 -0600
On 14 nov 2008, at 14:55, Fred Baker wrote:
Before we get too deeply exercised, let Margaret and I huddle on it. The issue you raised can be trivially solved by adding the checksum offset to a different 16 bits in the address, such as bits 96..127.
Being checksum-equivalent is important so all protocols that use the standard checksum keep working without the NAT66 specifically supporting those protocols.
The trouble is that in one's complement math 0xFFFF is equivalent to 0x0000 which means that there is loss of information, so accommodating the difference in the lower bits means some nasty corner cases are possible, while if it's in the subnet bits you just lose one subnet.
Current thread:
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length, (continued)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Joe Abley (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 22)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Leo Vegoda (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)