IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
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 0F76F1AE1C6 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 yb0B3LUobEUI for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com (mail-qc0-f175.google.com [209.85.216.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862361AE1C4 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v14so1303816qcr.6 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=F1iPbZ+8q86up2p0eeIUfz4jLNUsztQYdwvUEtbMqNg=; b=euWDMHOEnUAlfzvXhV9P9E3X5kEXAKFG/IcFGbtaJs19zX+/t+5P9KF4s2AKjcfQVY xhvgLvS5FW6Z7zghgbEx2p7ESLko/ni2U8yriwLIllxN4kbFxJhqvan/q1Ga60WFxnjo BZujJXMy9TeAVAJwFZfQef6q6eHIcBRdne+aNQzY5/eyl34QCwBQOWasCdN9qyhZsIH0 L1RVAvdP0i1xxLPhAOyNeQ5sVLnW0S31RmGKyAH88R4O8+zBK51o5ZivPMJczFJxVU5T fkO2mLDfjFCzAfS/Hv5QsD0tmVZivwg3jAsDUB88oFOoK94GSoe0plP6jIAeFbxTaFjE iNeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhJyJche8mT4T3mLoU6TwsxCX3oKCpYkxzfOrdT2Tt3lG00dMKZPvVm2oiFmLbndymqUN/
X-Received: by 10.224.75.200 with SMTP id z8mr4913846qaj.71.1384979566884; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.189.7.187] ([192.54.222.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 3sm8852053qej.0.2013.11.20.12.32.45 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:32:46 -0800 (PST)
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <DD294190-1AFE-4AAE-BF77-9C3F65694A3D@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42AF9AD2-978B-4B62-BF30-F61A9578C685@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B554a)
From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:32:39 -0500
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 01:02:35 -0800
Cc: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "jsaldana@unizar.es" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
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, 20 Nov 2013 20:32:55 -0000

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.

/mjm

Marie-José Montpetit
mariejo@mit.edu

> On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:19, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email