-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 One question:
I wonder whether ROHC should "skip compression" (if that's even possible) on packets when compression would present a phantom MTU. I.e., IMO ROHC ought to be focused on reducing header overhead, which is critical for small packets, but not on presenting a larger MTU than the path can handle with a native (uncompressed) packet. If that were the case, then all this MTU stuff would go away, AFAICT. Joe Carsten Bormann wrote: > On May 19, 2009, at 13:25, Carl Knutsson wrote: > >> As Tero pointed out, there already is a way in ROHCoIPSec to send >> packets uncompressed. > > True. This would mean that the ROHCoIPsec path inherits the MTU of the > tunnel minus IPsec overhead. > But one might want to do better than that, making use of the fact that > for many packets IPsec tunneling overhead will be mostly cancelled out > by the inner ROHC compression. > >> The tunnel already keeps track of the MTU to >> compensate for the IP, ESP AH headers. So adding ROHC overhead should >> not a problem. Why not let the user decide whether or not to use ROHC >> segmentation, IP fragmentation or sending large packets through the >> uncompressed channel. > > ...where user is the person who configured the tunnel. > Sounds good to me. > As long as the signals that go to the end hosts allow them to do > (PL)PMTUD predictably. > >> We could list pros and cons and give some guidelines. > > ...which would pretty much elaborate on my previous sentence. > > Gruesse, Carsten -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKEuGIE5f5cImnZrsRAvbyAKDA/CEaTjtBP54tJDYGzELTC9eb3ACdHjNL n5wBG75BCD964eg2/RJ29Jg= =SMLa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
