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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 20 November 2013 17:15 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 83CED1AE091; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:15:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.726
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, 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 o6_yBeLYVXzJ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BFE1AE07D; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:15:54 -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 rAKHFhRO017855; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:15:43 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "'Eggert, Lars'" <lars@netapp.com>
References: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$@unizar.es> <34D36AB0-C95B-4569-9FBC-6CD58483C78D@netapp.com> <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$@unizar.es> <DD294190-1AFE-4AAE-BF77-9C3F65694A3D@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD294190-1AFE-4AAE-BF77-9C3F65694A3D@netapp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:15:46 +0100
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <005301cee614$27a7b600$76f72200$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-language: es
Thread-index: AQG+D5B7Uz/tXBkoaMTv40ANCKbK9AHmFa++AngtL3cB+sdurpodPs7w
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, 'Martin Stiemerling' <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
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, 20 Nov 2013 17:15:56 -0000

Lars,

You are totally right. If there is a single hop, ROHC will be enough. 

The next scenarios may have a single hop:

- 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).
- an air-to-ground connection providing Internet connectivity to the
passengers of an aircraft, multiplexing a number of simultaneous VoIP flows.


Regarding these other two scenarios, perhaps TCM-TF would only be
interesting when there is a community network in which packets have to
traverse a (frequently high) number of hops:

- a wireless Internet connection shared by a number of people in a place
with low Internet penetration
- a community network, in which a number of people in the same geographical
place share their connections in a cooperative way

For example, in this scenario a community network with a high number of hops
is considered: http://www.guifi.net/en/guifi_zones. There is also a paper
about the topology of community networks: "On the topology characterization
of Guifi.net" http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6379103

Thanks for your feedback!

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Eggert, Lars
Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2013 17:20
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,

On 2013-11-20, at 10:24, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>; wrote:
> 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.

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.

It would be good to explicitly limit yourself to describing scenarios that
do have that requirement.

Lars