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

FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO <> Thu, 21 November 2013 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84761AE126; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:56:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.025
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 1TtABukzKTM1; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB711AE112; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:56:30 -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 <0MWM00L2V3TUAP@tid.hi.inet>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:56:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet []) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 29.F8.03197.6E4FD825; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:56:22 +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 <0MWM00L303TYAP@tid.hi.inet>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:56:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: from EX10-MB1-MAD.hi.inet ([]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:56:22 +0100
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:56:21 +0000
In-reply-to: <>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_6o4XRuBpwFKjb84fWQB0wA)"
Content-language: en-US
Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES
Thread-topic: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
Thread-index: Ac7l29nMkufifoJCSfepXySzd9rO2QAYJwOA//9/pgCAAA9RgIAARqiAgAECGYA=
X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7f3e8e000000c7d-80-528df4e699eb
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe/ApfvsS2+Qwf+t+ha7Pm9gtFjwZjGz A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgy/uy+y17ww7lid+MOlgbG3dZdjJwcEgImEqdftjFB 2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjAKHFj8lEmCOcJo8St73NYIZyNjBKXFh5jAWlhEVCVWDfpOSuIzSag JXH67iqwuLCAg8TNyQvAbE4Ba4kbrc2MECsUJP6cewwWFxEwkNjd28UMMpRZ4DyjxPx3M8Hu 4BWwlHh7AKKIV0BQ4sfke2A2s0C0xME5L9kgbHGJ5tabYHFGAVmJd/Pns0IMdZRoPL+WHcL2 k+hc8YMNYrGAxJI955khbFGJl4//QX3zj1HiXtcC9gmMYrOQ7JuFZN8sJPsgbD2JG1OnQMW1 JZYtfM0MYetKzPh3CKrGTGLZt6XMyGoWMHKsYhQrTirKTM8oyU3MzEk3MNTLyNTLzEst2cQI ic+MHYzLd6ocYhTgYFTi4e143BMkxJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYQ38mNvkBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q 8SFGJg5OqQbGww+ZmR9n+n3fHeO13TyLY/6vikNKMoKHbtUtavvWPf/dj7grRx1fdfXEMrvK 2Rh1ng3lvOG4YeWBLK5XG0z3NDx0X8uj+nyd8IQdRRavejY8V7SX4P6S+7AxbcuzpD7rMztC nzXlu/a+tOi9oLD19barOr1djow/nF15LD4bPTkss8E13EVViaU4I9FQi7moOBEAwPHq9q0C AAA=
References: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$> <> <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$> <> <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Martin Stiemerling <>, "Eggert, Lars" <>, "" <>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:56:34 -0000

Hi Marie,

I think transport accelerators are more focused in optimizing single data flows (compression and maybe tunneling). The main difference here would be the multiplexing of several data flows of different users. Please, if I am misunderstand you, provide more information about any other transport accelerator.

Un saludo,

Fernando Pascual Blanco
Network Automation and Dynamization | Telefonica Global Resources
C/ Don Ramón de la Cruz 82-82, 28006, Madrid, España<> |F +34 91 312 8779  |  M +34 682 005 168

On 20/11/2013, at 21:32, Marie-Jose Montpetit <<>> wrote:

If there is a discussion about charter I would like to see how this is different from any other 'transport accelerators' especially if the use cases now include VoIP, wireless and satellite links not just real time gaming or video streaming.


Marie-José Montpetit<>

On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:19, "Eggert, Lars" <>; wrote:


On 2013-11-20, at 10:24, Jose Saldana <>; 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.

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: