Subject: [rohc] RE: draft-ertekin-rqts-hcoipsec-01.txt

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:17:58 +0200

Steve,

> >I do not mean that you turn off ROHC, but what if you get more
> >flows to handle than you have negotiated support for, then there
> >is a ROHC profile that can send the packets "ROHC-encapsulated"
> >but with uncompressed headers. This profile can also be used for
> >e.g. packet flows using "new" transport protocols not yet supported
> >by ROHC.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your comment above. When we create an SA we 
> define the range of traffic flows that it will accommodate, based on 
> the 5 traffic selector types that IPsec uses to distinguish traffic 
> (S/D IP address, protocol, and S/D ports, if applicable). Only 
> traffic consistent with the traffic selector values specified for an 
> SA can be carried on that SA, period.

OK, thanks for clarifying that, I am not very familiar with details
of IPsec SA's.

> >In the draft, I saw multiplexing of compressed and uncompressed
> >header packets, and therefore I wanted to point out that this
> >multiplexing can be done with ROHC mechanisms, thereby avoiding
> >the unnecessary overhead from an additional multiplexing mechanism.
> 
> The draft you cited is an individual submission. It was not 
> coordinated with the IPsec WG.

True, it is an individual submission, but still the draft under
discussion here, and my comment was on that draft. The draft might be
wrong on IPsec-related issues, and I assume the authors will appreciate
your input on that. My comments, however, were only given with a HC
perspective, pointing out that *if* multiplexing of header-compressed
and non-header-compressed streams is desired, that can be achieved by
making use of the uncompressed profile.

/L-E

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