Capwap Mailing List: Re: need clarification on UDP ports

[Hasan Raza (hasan]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:44 -0700, 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.
Usually data plane is implemented in hardware and control plane in
software. Though a bit tricky, but bump in the stack is easier to
implement in software than hardware. Changing fast path logic in
hardware just for capwap packets may not be worth an effort if the extra
type header field does not serve any purpose. Since it is more or less
decided that DTLS is enabled or disabled on data plane is just based on
a binary configuration at AC, there does not seem to be any purpose of
extra type header field for data packets. May be we should look into
issue #221.

Hasan