Re: [PWE3] RE: [AVT] Re: Header Compression over MPLS & Allison'sDISCUSS Commenton PWE3 IANA Allocation Draft

[Allison Mankin <mankin at psg.com>]

Yaakov,

> cRTP is what is presently implemented,
> and there is a lot of reluctance to go over to ECRTP.
> 
> Although the problems relating to cRTP relating to packet loss
> are real, the fact that the PW goes through multiple hops
> is unimportant and should not by itself cause cRTP or cTCP to break,
> as the PW looks like a single link to the endpoints.

Multihop is concealed by a tunnel, yes, but it causes
the extra lossiness and delay that brings out the problems
eCRTP was engineered for.

May I ask:  why is the troublesome behavior of
CRTP acceptable and the performance of eCRTP not sought?
The loss effects mean resetting the compressor at least
and poor compression, and possibly other defects.

eCRTP has been in out there for quite a while now.
RFC 3545 was published July 2003, approved at least six
months earlier.

I'm just eager to learn at this point.

And this requires a bit more stretching to teach people, but
it is something of interest:

 "cRTP is what is presently implemented"

 "there is a lot of reluctance to go over to ECRTP""

What kind of implementation base are you describing?  If it
is implementation of Jerry's/AVT's solution for voice, that is not
so close to completion, so I think the implementations should
not be gelling, but it's better for us to know what these issues
are.

Allison


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3