Subject: IPDVB WG Activities at 67th IETF - Discussion Topics

From: Roderick Ragland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 06:54:40 -0400

Everyone,

I wanted to determine if there would be any interests with those on the 
ipdvb wg mailing list that would be interested in discussing methods of 
identifying extensions within ULE to indicate transmitted encapsulated IP 
packets that have compressed headers?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick J. Ragland
Senior Director Protocol and Networks Group
Hughes Network Systems, LLC.
11717 Exploration Lane
Germantown, MD 20876
(o) 301.548.1996  (w) www.hns.com
(f)  301.548.1112  (e) [email-masked]

---

From: "Juan Cantillo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:27:16 +0200

Personally I think this is an important topic. I found in the IPDVB archives
an old discussion about ULE and ROHC (2 or 3 years ago), but I've never been
able to find out what happened finally with it. Anyone to throw some light
on this?
On top of that, this could be interesting for GSE (the new encapsulation
protocol for IP over DVB-S2) as well, since IPDVB could bring a strong
contribution to GSE here.

Juan Cantillo

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:43:25 +0100

Indeed, I guess this would need a code-point to allow a ULE-Type, and a 
spec to say how it should work. Any work would need to be preceded by an 
understanding of the requirements (including if there is an expectation 
to supporty multicast).

There was some suggested (expired) work in ROHC that may have helped and 
could be appropriate: I recall some individual drafts suggesting support 
for ROHC over Ethernet - although the issues may not be the same, and 
the mortivation was I think WiFi.

As far as I know, this never proceeded, but similar issues have also 
appeared on other IP-over-foo lists in the Internet area. It would be 
good to resurect these thoughts and see whether there is now a case for 
working on this.

Gorry

Juan Cantillo wrote:

> Personally I think this is an important topic. I found in the IPDVB 
> archives an old discussion about ULE and ROHC (2 or 3 years ago), but 
> I've never been able to find out what happened finally with it. Anyone 
> to throw some light on this?
> On 10/3/06, Roderick Ragland <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Everyone,
> 
>     I wanted to determine if there would be any interests with those on
>     the ipdvb wg mailing list that would be interested in discussing
>     methods of identifying extensions within ULE to indicate transmitted
>     encapsulated IP packets that have compressed headers?
> 
>     (o) 301.548.1996  (w) www.hns.com <http://www.hns.com>
>     (f)  301.548.1112  (e) [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> 
>

---

From: John Border <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:53:09 -0400

One issue which we have been looking at (although I admit I haven't 
had much time to think about it myself) is whether it is sufficient to 
just signal that there is a compressed header present, assuming out of 
band means for coordination of the transmitter and receiver re which 
algorithm is in use, or include in-band signaling of the algorithm.  My 
initial thoughts have been that the latter is more desirable...

John