Re: [rohc] Queries from a beginner

Robert Stangarone <rstangarone@whataboutbob.org> Mon, 27 July 2009 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rstangarone@whataboutbob.org>
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 6C87A3A6C1E for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eceeXplN9O0I for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (fed1rmmtao103.cox.net [68.230.241.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4743A6B5E for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090727154503.JQVQ1223.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:45:03 -0400
Received: from cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org ([70.181.138.186]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id M3l21c00c41V7vq043l2vn; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:45:02 -0400
X-VR-Score: -100.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=X7jiLqAAM_5ya-eD0usA:9 a=lGYhtT0pHyXaHeVdaCYA:7 a=sg7YOXlA2qWBR7udsAMrXDV02vEA:4 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=vloO0rmG_MQVHZV7:21 a=YOYZ0fKPXNOsvKO4:21
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F2E3B943B; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at whataboutboborg
Received: from cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7V9H1Y9O9gS2; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14B63B950D; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydra.whataboutbob.org (hydra-eth1.whataboutbob.org [192.168.2.22]) by cc5-proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66BBF3B943B; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A6DCB7B.7040908@whataboutbob.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:44:59 -0700
From: Robert Stangarone <rstangarone@whataboutbob.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090625)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nikhil Ninan <nikhil@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, rohc@ietf.org
References: <002401ca0ebd$9de8d4d0$d9ba7e70$@abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <002401ca0ebd$9de8d4d0$d9ba7e70$@abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:19:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [rohc] Queries from a beginner
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:45:02 -0000

Nikhil, you should respond to the rohc@ietf.org address, which includes 
myself, so that other members of the list can follow the discussion.

The compressor will use the Optimistic Approach when determining which 
packet to send. See section 5.1.1 of RFC 5225. See also section 5.1.3 of 
  RFC 5225 on how the compressor chooses which packet to send to the 
decompressor. Examining the decompressor state machine found in 5.2.1 of 
RFC 5225 may also provide insight into the compressor's choice of packets.

The packet sizes will be the sum of the ROHC header used and the result 
of the encoding method used. The packet size has many influences. In the 
unidirectional mode, the pattern of change observed for each of the 
fields in the packet headers which are being compressed is the primary 
influence, with the timeout period also determining when an IR will be sent.

If you are doing just IP headers, you should review the field 
classifications found in Appendix A of RFC 5225.

I would suggest you throughly read each of the related RFCs, as many of 
your questions are addressed in each of those documents.

Good luck,

Bob


Hello Bob,
          Thanks for responding to my previous email with regard to the ROHC
queries. After going through your reply I went back to the ietf working
group and had a look at the rfc5225 (previously I was looking at rfc3095).
All my queries are with regard to only IP header compression (i.e. profile
0x0104 or 0x0004) and for uni-directional mode. I am trying to do a
numerical analysis of ROHC(/v2). Following are my questions:

In RFC 3095, it is mentioned that for each of the modes(i.e.uni-directional,
bidirectional,etc) there will be 3 states (IR, FO, SO). In terms of what
sort of packet is going to be sent during each of these states in the
unidirectional mode, can you give me a packet to state guide please,i.e. IR
= normal uncompressed packet, FO = IR packet with static and dynamic, SO =
IR packet with only dynamic.

In RFC 5225, the 3 states for each mode is not mentioned. I assume that mode
of thinking has been completely removed and now it is just a IR state and a
CO state?
IF that is the case then what is the packet sizes for IR, IR-Dyn and CO
state packets. I understand that it will vary if there are inner headers,
etc but what will be the case for just the single IP header present,
irrespective of inner headers (UDP,TCP, UDP-lite, RTP , etc).

Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Cheers
Nikhil
*****************
***** .254 *****
*****************