Subject: [rohc] IPv6 deployment in profile 2 and 4

From: Ana Carolina Minaburo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:03:26 +0200

Hi!

When using IPv6 with profile 2 and 4 the field IP-ID in R-1 and UO-1 
packets does not exist in the original IPv6 header then which could be 
the possible value in these packets type for this field?

Ana

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:13:43 +0200

> >First an important note. Profile 4 has not yet been defined, there 
> >is a proposal available but that does not mean the profile will look
> >that way when it is finalized.
> >
> Ok, as in your draft description profile 4 seams to be similar to 
> profile 2, then normally you use the same packets types with the same 
> fields.

Yes, the intention with the current draft was to make the profile 
totally in line with profile 2. However, as we discussed in Yokohama, 
we might want to make profile 4 much more simplified. That is an issue
for further discussion.

> >Anyway, back to the original question. If a format is used for IPv6,
> >which has an IP ID field, that could be set to any value since it 
> >would not be used by the decompressor.
> >
> Ok, but perhaps it is better do not send it. Perhaps I am 
> wrong but if it is not needed is better do not send it.

We should be clear with what we are discussing here. In general, 
of course it is a waste of bits to send unnecessary information.
However, it might be motivated with common formats, which was
the case here. Further, we do not have a choice for profile 2, 
since there we already have standardized the formats as they are
now written. We do have an option to do different for the
future profile 4, so in that context the discussion might be
motivated.

Cheers,
/L-E