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

  +1.

Hi,
   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.

Regards,
    Manuel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Jose Saldana
Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2013 16:25
Para: 'Eggert, Lars'
CC: tcmtf@ietf.org; 'Martin Stiemerling'; tsv-area@ietf.org
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,

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Eggert, Lars Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2013 15:04
Para: jsaldana@unizar.es
CC: tcmtf@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling; tsv-area@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

Hi,

why is ROHC not a solution?

Lars

On 2013-11-20, at 6:13, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> 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
places.
>
> 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.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_network.
>
> 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
competition)."
>
> 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." http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/work.do
>
> 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?
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jose Saldana
>

_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
tcmtf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf

________________________________

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:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx