In your previous mail you wrote: Does anybody know how well ROHC would perform in the specific case Steve's draft covers?
=> ROHC explicitely supports encapsulation (i.e. addresses which are always the same are dropped). If it does as well, or almost as well, then I would agree with Pekka- any case where the bandwidth is critical should be using ROHC anyway. => I agree (this argument applies near each time where the bandwidth is critical) but I believe the purpose is not to save bandwidth but to replace special devices by a more general one: - replace one shot source routing by IPV6_NO_SRC - replace home address option by IPV6_NO_DEST There are already degenerated (i.e. optimizable) cases of tunnel in mobility, IPsec, ... To have a general mechanism is a good idea, at least as a basis for discussion. But I'd like to see an example (the text is not very clear about the new non-terminal header format, it seems it has exactly the same layout than the IPv6 header) and of course the security section. For instance I'd like to know how ESP is applied (is the inner header compressed, if it is the case there is a security issue, if it is not the case common applicability cases are lost). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
