Subject: [rohc] Review of draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-00.txt

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:01:29 -0800 (PST)

Here's my review.  There may be some tricky issues to watch out for with
respect to negotiation of ROHC capabilities on IEEE 802 networks that
may make it difficult to achieve the desired level of uniformity.

Also, as noted by Mike Moreton:

"The IEEE RAC gets very upset about anyone using OUIs in a non-standard
way, so I doubt you'd get a lot of support for using the
locally administered or I/G bits to distinguish your frames.  However,
802.11 already uses a full LLC/SNAP header, so using such
a header would be fine for 802.11, and as you say elsewhere probably
wouldn't make a great deal of difference for 802.3.

I think the padding issue is interesting - it's funny how a drop-off in
the original Ethernet specification is still causing us
problems all these years later..."
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:34:02 +0100

On Nov 29 2004, at 12:28 Uhr, McCann, Stephen wrote:

> Carsten,
> 	I've only had a short time to quickly look at your I-D, but
> one thing that I did want to ask, is the applicability of this
> scheme to both IEEE 802.5 and 802.17, in that these are not
> ethernet based systems.
>
> I know that the 'iporpr' wg is doing some work in this area, but
> I just wondered if your I-D only refers to 802 media which support
> the ethernet type?

Stephen,

thank you for that comment; I've completely stopped thinking about 
rings.
While the discussion is framed in terms of the more visible 802 
standards, the intention indeed is to cover all 802-style L2s that 
commonly might be concatenated by bridge-like L2-only units (including 
even the non-802 FDDI, as this may form part of a bridged L2 path that 
leads to a wireless access point).
Since the solution (subset) proposed uses an LLC-style length field, I 
believe it does apply to 802.5 (but then I've never actually worked 
with 802.5, so I'm not sure).
In particular, I don't know how source-routing would interact with any 
negotiation/announce protocol.

I don't know enough about 802.17 to comment (I was under the impression 
that 802.17 is ethertype-based, though).

> PS : I have the same problems on the IEEE 802 side with IEEE 802.21

How do these problems manifest themselves in 802.21?

Gruesse, Carsten