Re: [rohc] question about draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-00.txt

That solution has got my vote too.
There are some issues regarding legacy switches/bridges, which when
transporting IP packets, are not able to distinguish padding in an
ethernet frame, and thus, not able to strip padding.
It is my understanding that one of the major motivations of a LLC/Snap
solution, is to be able to support this legacy equipment (i.e. without
any modification).

IMHO, I think is better not to follow this approach and develop a
solution that carries RoHC packets directly over DIX frames, using a
RoHC padding scheme. This approach would not assume the existance of a
L2 length field (like in RFC 3409).

Of course this means that future equipment will have to support this.
But there are other indications that these equipments will have to be
modified, e.g. like with most solutions developed in the context of 4G
networks.

Best Regards,
Pedro Fortuna
=======================
Faculty of Engineering (FEUP)
University of Porto
Portugal

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:04:16 +0100, Ana Minaburo
<anacarolina.minaburo@enst-bretagne.fr> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> After reading your draft of ROHC over 802, and looking at the LLC
> encapsulation,  I was wondering why do not use ROHC directly with the
> Ethernet header using a self describing padding?
> 
> Ana
> 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc