[tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 5. why is ROHC not a solution?

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 05 February 2014 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75ED1A00F1; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.735
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kSEvB2dE6lD8; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B891A0101; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s15C7Sgk014321; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:28 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:33 +0100
Message-ID: <00a501cf226a$da453480$8ecf9d80$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A6_01CF2273.3C0A86E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac8iagXvDOwK87w2SMWZjzKchMXMTg==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 5. why is ROHC not a solution?
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:07:36 -0000

Problem:
 
Lars: "several of the scenarios you describe for TCM-TF seem to be fully
addressed by ROHC, i.e., do not seem to have multiple L3 hops that require
creation of a tunnel."
 
See this thread:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00441.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00441.html
 
 
Jose