Re: Need some clarification or help

["Jee J.Z." <jz105@york.ac.uk>]

Hi Christian,


> Maybe I am a little bit lazy when describing my method as "tunnelling".
> Therefore I will go a little bit deeper.
> I know that UDP and TCP protocols are completely different, especially
> the 3-way handshake. But all its steps are TCP packets. Therefore my idea
> is to encapsulate on each side each TCP packet into a UDP packet, send
> this one to the other side, decapsulate the original TCP paket from the
UDP
> packet and inject the TCP packet to the kernel. This way the total TCP
> dialog shall be exchanged as payload of separate UDP packets. UDP
> is necessary, because only UDP can use broadcast addresses.
> (I use this type of address to emulate LAN-broadcast within a mobile
> adhoc network. Therefore I doubt that vtun would help me.)

This sounds to me like that you need two transport layers to do this at the
receivers. Otherwise the encapsulated TCP packets will be forwarded as the
payload of UDP packets to upper layers. The receivers even don't know they
were actually TCP packets, and upper layers will get confused what these
payloads mean. Am I missing something obvious?

Cheers,
Jee

> >
> > > Here is what I wish to do:
> > > For the transmission of IP packets (UDP, ICMP, TCP) between two hosts
> > > I want to send these packets through a UDP tunnel.
> >
> > Tunnelling is a very different matter from converting UDP packets into
TCP
> > packets, and should be eminently feasible.
>
> As I tried to explain, I do NOT want to convert UDP to TCP, I only want to
> transport TCP packets as UDP payload.
>
> I would be glad if you can comment the method described above.
>
> Regards
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Riechmann    E-Mail: riechmann@fgan.de
> c/o FGAN/FKIE          Tel: (+49) 228/9435 345,378
> Neuenahrer Strasse 20  Fax: (+49) 228/9435 685
> D-53343 Wachtberg, Germany
>
>