IETF Logo Mail Archive

more IP compression work to do?

Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com> Thu, 15 October 1998 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: Stephen.Waters@digital.com
Received: from kickme.cisco.com (kickme.cisco.com [198.92.30.42]) by ftp-eng.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA11268 for <ippcp-archive-file@ftp-eng.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from beasley.cisco.com (autorespond.cisco.com [171.69.2.135]) by kickme.cisco.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA03606 for <extdom.ippcp@filter.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com (sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com [171.68.224.215]) by beasley.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with ESMTP id CAA17040 for <ippcp@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxy3.cisco.com (proxy3.cisco.com [192.31.7.90]) by sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA25611 for <ippcp@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by proxy3.cisco.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id CAA25703 for <ippcp@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail13.digital.com(192.208.46.30) by proxy3.cisco.com via smap (V2.0) id xma025693; Thu, 15 Oct 98 09:53:21 GMT
X-SMAP-Received-From: outside
Received: from reohub2.reo.dec.com (reohub2.reo.dec.com [16.37.21.19]) by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0h) with ESMTP id FAA07383 for <ippcp@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by reohub2.reo.dec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <49G20731>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:49:29 +0100
Message-ID: <250F9C8DEB9ED011A14D08002BE4F64C01EB59C0@wade.reo.dec.com>
From: Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com>
To: ippcp@external.cisco.com
Subject: more IP compression work to do?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:48:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

	Hi,

	Are there any plans to extend IPPCP to allow IP header compression
(lots of work on this in PPPext land)?
	I guess this would be limited to the case where a negotiation
protocol was present - e.g. IKE, where the extent of the 
	compression could be negotiated for an IPSEC tunnel, say.

	Regards, Steve.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email