-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 19 mei 2009, at 23:14, Joe Touch wrote: > >>> Didn't you just suggest to just send enough of the original packet to >>> make ROHC do its thing? That piece of the packet should be small enough >>> to always fit. > >> Yes, except that I also suggested sending the packet without any ROHC on >> it too. > > Yes, but then you would still almost never have full-size packets so the > ROHC only saves bandwidth, not packets. I wouldn't say only. The number of packets you save is still in the noise... > Basically this will buy you a 1 > byte larger MTU, not worth the trouble because the IPsec header already > exposes you to PMTUD blackholes anyway. Using ROHC allows you 30 bytes more in the MTU if you try hard, but causes this sort of hiccup on resync packets as a result. IMO, that's more trouble than it's worth. > Ideally, the decapsulator can tell the encapsulator what to do because > the decapsulator knows about whether it's behind a NAT with > fragmentation issues. But then there would have to be signaling that > carries this information. Yeah - that's what Fred was getting at with SEAL, which has that sort of signalling. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoTJnkACgkQE5f5cImnZrs4CQCffKV0CLgyitOBk7Eznplq6BYQ 5B0An3YCk6KEqkWMFWdgP+ziPso/wuMJ =2UDf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
