Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termination for Profile 0x004
"Gurushant" <gurushant@tataelxsi.co.in> Thu, 04 March 2010 11:56 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=672a52882=gurushant@tataelxsi.co.in>
X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 8071C3A89DC for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:56:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xgH91xRZHNps for
<rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpin2.mailsecure.in (SMTPIN2.mailsecure.in [121.241.224.3])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF833A8913 for <rohc@ietf.org>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:56:22 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,580,1262543400"; d="scan'208";a="75037141"
Received: from unknown (HELO VSNLCHNFE001.VSNLXCHANGE.COM) ([10.72.10.11]) by
smtpout2.vsnlxchange.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2010 17:26:20 +0530
Received: from gurushant ([59.160.207.5]) by VSNLCHNFE001.VSNLXCHANGE.COM with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:26:20 +0530
From: "Gurushant" <gurushant@tataelxsi.co.in>
To: "'Simon Laurenz'" <simon.laurenz@acticom.de>, <rohc@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:26:16 +0530
Message-ID: <05B0C9EECE0E48868C7A19616CDFC5FC@telxsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <4B74F620.4050601@acticom.de>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Importance: Normal
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2010 11:56:20.0514 (UTC)
FILETIME=[B46C7820:01CABB91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termination for Profile
0x004
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gurushant@tataelxsi.co.in
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>,
<mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>,
<mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:03:27 -0000
Hello Simon, I have doubt related to static chain termination. The RFC 3843 ,sec 3.1 mentions that "The decompressor must store this indication in the context for correct decompression of subsequent headers. Note that the IP version field in decompressed headers must be restored to its original value" May I request to elaborate more on this reference, i.e. how the subsequent header version is restored to original value? Thanks & Best Regards Gurushant -----Original Message----- From: rohc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rohc-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Simon Laurenz Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:03 PM To: Ganesh; rohc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termination for Profile 0x004 Hi Ganesh I think you got to things wrong. First thing is that every change is made only in the Version field. This means only in the first 4 bits of the first byte. There the first bit is the MSB (Most significance bit). Thus results in the following replacement: 1. For IPv4: * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Version | IHL +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ ** **MSB **LSB | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 0x4 | 0x5 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * | 0100 | 0101 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * becomes * * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Version | IHL +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ ** **MSB **LSB | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 0xC | 0x5 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * | 1100 | 0101 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * * 2. For IPv6: * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Version | Flowlabel +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ ** **MSB **LSB | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 0x6 | 0xXX | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * | 0110 | xxxx | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * * * becomes * * +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Version | Flowlabel +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ ** **MSB **LSB | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 0xE | 0xXX | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * | 1110 | xxxx | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ * * Best regards Simon Laurenz Ganesh wrote: > Hi All, > I have one doubt regarding the Static chain termination part for > Profile No 0x004, > as per the RFC 3843 > > *3.1. Static Chain Termination RFC 3843* > * > compressor can choose to end the static chain at any IP header, and > indicate this by setting the MSB of the IP version field to 1 (0xC for > IPv4 or 0xE for IPv6). > > as per my Understanding > 1. For IPV4, > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > LSB | MSB > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | Version = 4 | 0 | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > the MSB 0 has to be replaced By 1, so it will be as below (0xC for IPv4) > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > LSB | MSB > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | Version = 4 | 1 | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > 2. For IPV6. ( 0xE for IPv6) > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > LSB | MSB > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | Version = 6 | Flow Label(msb) | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > RFC 3843 Mentions that MSB has to be replaced by 1, how can the 4 bits > of the flow Label MSB can be changed to 1?? > is my understanding correct?? > can anyone clarify my doubt?? > > > > > > *Thanks & Regards, > Ganesh Babu Kamma > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc > _______________________________________________ Rohc mailing list Rohc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
- [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain terminati… Ganesh
- Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termi… Simon Laurenz
- Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termi… Gurushant
- Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termi… Gurushant
- Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termi… Klaus Warnke
- Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termi… Gurushant