IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP

Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke@acticom.de> Mon, 27 July 2009 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <klaus.warnke@acticom.de>
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 3F4183A686D for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.397, 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 tbANcNJoAf6o for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com (mail.acticom-networks.com [87.106.254.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2D03A657C for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC571C00428; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:59 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at acticom-networks.com
Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.acticom-networks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k+8TC37Jsk47; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from godfather.bln.acticom.de (mail.oosoft.net [212.99.204.33]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B2E1C00429; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by godfather.bln.acticom.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBFCF3ADA; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bln.acticom.de
Received: from godfather.bln.acticom.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (godfather.bln.acticom.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOVMVF4bkRes; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.33.27] (tornado.bln.acticom.de [192.168.33.27]) by godfather.bln.acticom.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADABF3AA8; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:49 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4A6D8DCD.8090604@acticom.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:21:49 +0200
From: Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke@acticom.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ganesh <ganeshbabukamma@gmail.com>
References: <adc9dae40907270400y2a860657p156c8e620b4264df@mail.gmail.com> <adc9dae40907270401i7e3e84dcv4fa2bc09e4770ea0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <adc9dae40907270401i7e3e84dcv4fa2bc09e4770ea0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP
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 11:22:00 -0000

Ganesh,

the version of profile used, is negotiated for every profile
independent, not for all profiles together.  For the TCP profile
only one version exist (yet). Therefore the profile has the
identifier 0x0006.  For IP/UDP/RTP two version exist:

RFC3905: 0x0001
RFC5225: 0x0101

The upper octet is the version number, the lower the profile
number itself.  Because while compression and de-compression only
one lower octet is send, the version has to be negotiation first.
It is a little bit confusing, that for the TCP profile the
version number is 0, but for the TCP profile only a on the RoHC
FN definition exists.  If it makes sense to mix profiles, using
the RTP profile version 0 from RFC3095 and UPD version 1 defined
in RoHC FN, I don't know.  But it is possible from my point of view.

br
Klaus Warnke

Ganesh wrote:
> Hi all, 
> THe RFC 4996, is more inclined to ROHCV2 profiles, but the profile 
> number is defined as 0x006 (version 1), as per the RFC 5225, if we 
> have multiple variants of ROHC versions, then the ROHC compressor and 
> decompressor  after negotiation has to use only one version, if 
> version 2 is selected, then how the TCP packets will be compressed??
> Can any one please reply to the Question??
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ganesh Babu Kamma
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email