Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

MANUEL NUÑEZ SANZ <> Wed, 20 November 2013 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BE11AE022; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:45:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.426
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSEENelHZ4oQ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D682D1ADFE7; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MWK00CXYJQU1W@tid.hi.inet>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:44:55 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet []) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 01.E6.03197.7F8DC825; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:44:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from (mailhost.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MWK00CYYJQV1W@tid.hi.inet>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:44:55 +0100 (MET)
Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([]) by EX10-HTCAS6-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:44:55 +0100
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:44:54 +0000
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?MANUEL_NU=D1EZ_SANZ?= <>
In-reply-to: <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: "" <>
Message-id: <90ED8822CB577741B9A1668A47539312658430B6@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-language: es-ES
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US
Thread-topic: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
Thread-index: Ac7l29nMkufifoJCSfepXySzd9rO2QAYJwOA//9/pgD//+uREA==
X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7f3e8e000000c7d-22-528cd8f74b5f
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe/Apfv9Rk+Qwd27cha7Pm9gtFjwZjGz A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyug8dYiv4Ll/xqUOigfGdZBcjJ4eEgInE5/apLBC2 mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEDjBKfDy2nAnCecIoMenTe2YIZyajxLJJz1lBWlgEVCW23Z0OlODgYBMw l+hbxwMSFhZwkLj1fj/YVE4BC4mHJ28yQWxQkPhz7jFYXERAV+LK2u/sIDOZBZYxSjTsfQg2 k1fAW+LTiTWMELagxI/J98AamAV0JHq/f2OGsMUl5vyayApha0s8eXcBzGYUkJVYef40I8QC R4nG82vZIWwniRXTZkO9KSCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+scI+d/fSZfQKj+Cwku2ch2T0Lye5ZSHYv YGRZxShWnFSUmZ5RkpuYmZNuYKiXkamXmZdasokRElMZOxiX71Q5xCjAwajEw1uwqDtIiDWx rLgy9xCjBAezkghv196eICHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MBp55bd/XPtia+tP2Qd3n yON33DNYvPp7FluuXPrgaKNq6JrVBiIa/GX287ifz4/5c6OvioFRrecel0Xd4YOfrD1En9sa lsw1FOs5L+lionxjdVbVWz+Vnw1vUqeUdJiISRWI1TEezHR70/WkfcsLpc2RLF9LTFYnvvCf lRwVOyd3WaAOR4ISS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAHfZf0hwIAAA==
References: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$> <> <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$>
Cc: "" <>, "'Eggert, Lars'" <>, 'Martin Stiemerling' <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:45:06 -0000


   When you have more than a single hop in the long same path you need a other way to get that type of saving without using ROHC in each segment.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf [] En nombre de Jose Saldana
Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2013 16:25
Para: 'Eggert, Lars'
CC:; 'Martin Stiemerling';
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

Hi, Lars.

ROHC in fact is the most important part of the solution, since it is the algorithm that reduces the size of the headers dramatically. Since the header and the payload are in the same order of magnitude, the saving is significant. ROHC can be enough if you are considering a single hop.

But if you want to use it in more than a single hop, ROHC has to be tunneled, and you lose the savings achieved by compression. So the idea is that a number of packets (multiplexed) share the tunnel overhead.

Best regards,


-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf [] En nombre de Eggert, Lars Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2013 15:04
CC:; Martin Stiemerling;
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8


why is ROHC not a solution?


On 2013-11-20, at 6:13, Jose Saldana <>; wrote:

> Hi all.
> We have the idea of asking for a BoF in London in March 2014. For this
> aim, we should discuss a new version of the charter draft. I send it
> in the next e-mail.
> This e-mail summarizes the improvements. I have put different numbers,
> in order to discuss them separately in the list.
> 1- In order to be consistent with the drafts, the charter should talk
> about "TCM-ingress and egress optimizers" instead of "TCM multiplexers
> and demultiplexers".
> 2- A new scenario has been included "a wireless Internet connection
> shared by a number of people in a place with low Internet
> penetration", taking into account that some people from Africa were
> interested on TCM for improving real-time applications in this kind of
> 3- Scenario: "a community network, in which a number of people in the
> same geographical place share their connections in a cooperative way".
> It has some similarities with the previous one.
> 4- Scenario: "a satellite connection used for providing connectivity
> in a non-connected area during a short period of time (e.g.
> journalists covering the arrival of a mountain stage of a cycling
> 5- Scenario: " -      an air-to-ground connection providing Internet
> connectivity to the passengers of an aircraft, multiplexing a number
> of simultaneous VoIP flows. The same can be applied between a cruise
> ship and a satellite."
> 6- According to the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, the
> references to TCP have been removed.
> 7- A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has
> been added in number 8: "The eventual impact of multiplexing on
> protocol dynamics (e.g. the lost of a multiplexed packet, MTU-related
> issues) will also have to be addressed.."
> Any other suggestions, according to what we discussed in the BoF?
> Best regards,
> Jose Saldana

tcmtf mailing list


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: