Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termination for Profile0x004
Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke@acticom.de> Wed, 10 March 2010 10:37 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 0B9C63A67A5 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:37:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[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 ewGIKfSTJ7eh for
<rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com (mail.acticom-networks.com
[87.106.254.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148173A67AD for
<rohc@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3CD1C00424;
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:57 +0100 (CET)
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 BORkNA+HdGHC; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from godfather.bln.acticom.de (mail.oosoft.net [212.99.204.33]) by
mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2DF1C00420;
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by godfather.bln.acticom.de
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E52BF3AD4; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:56 +0100 (CET)
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 D8HTBZMZ9zXu; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from TORNADO.acticom.de (tornado.bln.acticom.de [192.168.33.27]) by
godfather.bln.acticom.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A432F3AD0;
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:53 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:55 +0100
Message-ID: <uy6i0a2d8.wl%klaus.warnke@acticom.de>
From: Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke@acticom.de>
To: gurushant@tataelxsi.co.in
In-Reply-To: <21275250C53C47D09DEF3F34D387508B@telxsi.com>
References: <05B0C9EECE0E48868C7A19616CDFC5FC@telxsi.com>
<21275250C53C47D09DEF3F34D387508B@telxsi.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6
(Marutamachi) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.2 (i386-mingw-nt6.0.6002) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rohc] Doubt regarding the Static chain termination
for Profile0x004
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:37:55 -0000
Hello Gurushant, At Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:23:03 +0530, Gurushant wrote: > Dear All, > > Can one help on the below issue? > > Thanks & Best Regards > Gurushant > >> 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? If you don't remenber in the decompressor context, how many IP headers are in the chain, you could not restore the original chain. In all other profiles it is clear, because there are at most two IP headers. It was sufficient to remember tunnel or not. If you are using, for example, the RTP profile, after the one/two IP headers the RTP header must follow. So there you need no extra information in the decompressor context. But in this profile, the count of the IP headers is not fixed, therefore you have to remember its termination to know where the UDP/RTP headers are following (in RTP profile). To restore the original version value, you have to clear the MSB: * 0xC for IPv4 back to 0x4 * 0xE for IPv6 back to 0x6 That means, you should not put the 0xC/0xE value in the version field of the reconstructed IP header in case of decompression the last IP header in the chain. Was this your question? > Thanks & Best Regards > Gurushant Gruss, Klaus
- [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