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

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 D3EF61ADF8E; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:20:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 XFX3NMYnwUyo; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FAA1ADF50; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:20:54 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,738,1378882800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="117917810"
Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2013 08:20:35 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.244]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:19:55 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "jsaldana@unizar.es" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Thread-Topic: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
Thread-Index: Ac7l29nMkufifoJCSfepXySzd9rO2QAYJwOAAALQxQAAAemnAA==
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:19:45 +0000
Message-ID: <DD294190-1AFE-4AAE-BF77-9C3F65694A3D@netapp.com>
References: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$@unizar.es> <34D36AB0-C95B-4569-9FBC-6CD58483C78D@netapp.com> <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <002801cee604$abcb7b20$03627160$@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F3760EC-4352-46A2-A63E-7665D47E3836"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <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
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 16:20:56 -0000

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