Re: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP

To: Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke at acticom.de>

Subject: Re: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP

From: Ganesh <ganeshbabukamma at gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:31:31 +0900

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=j+t/doUTj7rJn0AGUWKsylZDFYuUXYgWTlEgyjgiJM0=; b=Z1td1XfSuOhsonz7fEdudrub/kDhB8AGQtNLvzqo6zZ+xeRqkCJ/AwnLNjdsUGxYkd NUZ76drmY32etzilyrqM6jkRf33XcI/G8Ot1Gk4d6PD+JxlmhbxD4A1cxOO1uN9oNBo+ 5sEWW42RD084/fxa0Ydn0ozHhG3l1NnB/sIBU=

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=LfxlkaVJoBGbCmEywlyU6DRc/KX0tboJYxOWmHUgvJC343MU4PPTWmLY/IewDVp69X gQpP1QqzOq4wNBhQwuUjSWYyiVlhIef7wlQ14laLprhCIDtRQvmHkyE9KbwFRb4NkMft 3McewqFJZD2g5x2ycG/jRA8yeLUlqaL+r7rI4=

In-reply-to: <4A6D8DCD.8090604 at acticom.de>

List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc>

List-help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>

List-id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>

List-post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>

List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>

References: <adc9dae40907270400y2a860657p156c8e620b4264df at mail.gmail.com> <adc9dae40907270401i7e3e84dcv4fa2bc09e4770ea0 at mail.gmail.com> <4A6D8DCD.8090604 at acticom.de>

Klaus Warnke,

so ur mentioning that when the negotiation is happening between compressor and decompressor, it has to be done based on each profile, not on version based,

i.e it can be only RTP profile (0x101) for version 1 and all other profiles,UDP, ESP can be version 0 etc??

is it the efficient way of doing that one, for mobile implementation for 3gpp based things, as their is constrains on memory and processing resources..

In my opinion, if both versions are activated but for different profiles, there wont be problem for Network nodes, as there is not constraint on memory or processing resources.

Pls comment on the doubts i have.

Thanks & Regards

Ganesh.

2009/7/27 Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke at acticom.de>

Ganesh,

the version of profile used, is negotiated for every profile
independent, not for all profiles together. For the TCP profile
only one version exist (yet). Therefore the profile has the
identifier 0x0006. For IP/UDP/RTP two version exist:

RFC3905: 0x0001
RFC5225: 0x0101

The upper octet is the version number, the lower the profile
number itself. Because while compression and de-compression only
one lower octet is send, the version has to be negotiation first.
It is a little bit confusing, that for the TCP profile the
version number is 0, but for the TCP profile only a on the RoHC
FN definition exists. If it makes sense to mix profiles, using
the RTP profile version 0 from RFC3095 and UPD version 1 defined
in RoHC FN, I don't know. But it is possible from my point of view.

br
Klaus Warnke

Ganesh wrote:

Hi all, THe RFC 4996, is more inclined to ROHCV2 profiles, but the profile number is defined as 0x006 (version 1), as per the RFC 5225, if we have multiple variants of ROHC versions, then the ROHC compressor and decompressor after negotiation has to use only one version, if version 2 is selected, then how the TCP packets will be compressed??
Can any one please reply to the Question??

Thanks & Regards,
Ganesh Babu Kamma

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc