Capwap Mailing List: Re: need clarification on UDP ports

[Margaret Wasserman (margaret]

Hi Pat,

On Oct 26, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Pat Calhoun ((pacalhou)) wrote:
> ok... no real objections on including an interim (short) tag to
> represent the packet type. If we are to go down this path, I would
> prefer that we maintain consistency across both the control and data
> plane, and include the same header on both UDP ports. This way, if a
> DTLS session is being used to secure the data plane, the (relatively)
> same pre-parsing and security validation logic can be used.

That works for me, too

The main reason I had not suggested including the tag on both control  
and data packets was that I was concerned about lowering the MTU of  
the link for little benefit.  Is there some reason why that isn't a  
concern?

Margaret