From divines10@iksny.com Fri Feb 1 01:13:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354A53A6894 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:13:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 91.041 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=91.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, INVALID_DATE=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_URI_CONS7=0.306, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, URI_NOVOWEL=1.62] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 1.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822) * 1.6 URI_NOVOWEL URI: URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence * 2.2 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: cbcxbxv.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [89.20.3.100 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.3 SARE_URI_CONS7 body contains link to probable spammer Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MCM2B5dkTw7m for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.20.3.100] (unknown [89.20.3.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910D93A68C1 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.20.3.100] by iksny.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net; Fri, 32 Jan 2008 12:14:54 +0300 From: "Johnie Frazier" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 91.041 (5) DickFatArnold Date: Fri, 32 Jan 2008 12:14:54 +0300 Message-ID: <04e0fd74$00000004$64031459@divines10> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal MaiPenisGrand http://www.cbcxbxv.com From itteeism@1000leaf.com Fri Feb 1 02:10:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCECF3A6813 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:10:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 112.467 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=112.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MANGLED_DICK=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SUB_MEDICAL_NEWS=0.756, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_12 BODY: 1alpha-pock-2alpha * 2.3 MANGLED_DICK BODY: mangled dick * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: oatings.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: oatings.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [200.42.44.193 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [200.42.44.193 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 1.6 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY RBL: NJABL: sender is an open proxy * [200.42.44.193 listed in combined.njabl.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 0.8 SARE_SUB_MEDICAL_NEWS Spammer subject - medical * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y4BpsgQK8k0I for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 200-42-44-193.dsl.prima.net.ar (200-42-44-193.dsl.prima.net.ar [200.42.44.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F048A3A68B5 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:10:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000d01c864c3$306c66b0$c12c2ac8@maria> From: "Arnost DACLIN" To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 112.467 (5) A revolutionary medical discovery has been made Find out more here Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:11:27 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864AA.0B1F2EB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864AA.0B1F2EB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make her dreams come true, fulfil her greatest desires with your new big = d1ck ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864AA.0B1F2EB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make her dreams come true, fulfil = her greatest=20 desires with your new big d1ck ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864AA.0B1F2EB0-- From itsanidr@1000leaf.com Fri Feb 1 02:14:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02C93A686F for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:14:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 116.963 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=116.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis * 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis * 1.7 FB_PENIS BODY: FB_PENIS * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_13 BODY: 1alpha-pock-3alpha * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 1.6 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY RBL: NJABL: sender is an open proxy * [200.42.44.193 listed in combined.njabl.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [200.42.44.193 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [200.42.44.193 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: manvilk.com] * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9yTMBRFmcjj for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from 200-42-44-193.dsl.prima.net.ar (200-42-44-193.dsl.prima.net.ar [200.42.44.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805923A6832 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:14:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c864c3$bfe3b230$c12c2ac8@maria> From: "stacy gobtsev" To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 116.963 (5) Do not bow to nature It is possible to extend your manhood up to SIX inches Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:15:28 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864AA.9A967A30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864AA.9A967A30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Want a brand new large P3Nis? It's easy, simply click HERE ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864AA.9A967A30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Want a brand new large P3Nis? It's = easy,=20 simply click HERE ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864AA.9A967A30-- From jquilez@anuntis.com Fri Feb 1 03:37:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D943A692F for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:37:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 101.95 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=101.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=1, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_ENLARG=2.3, MANGLED_ENLGMN=5, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE=2.523, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2=4.325, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 * 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam) * 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis * 0.7 SARE_ADLTOBFU BODY: Contains OBFU adult material * 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis * 5.0 MANGLED_ENLGMN BODY: mangled enlargement * 1.7 FB_PENIS BODY: FB_PENIS * 2.3 MANGLED_ENLARG BODY: mangled enlarge(r|s) * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_31 BODY: 3alpha-pock-1alpha * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 1.5 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20 BODY: HTML: images with 1600-2000 bytes of words * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.7 SARE_HTML_A_BODY FULL: Message body has very strange HTML sequence * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: domizu.com] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [62.118.172.2 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.0 HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3 HTML is very short with a linked image * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.6 HELO_MISMATCH_COM HELO_MISMATCH_COM Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSZ0yP+dsx0n for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from gbe.com (unknown [62.118.172.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D20063A6880 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:36:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 195.77.175.124 (HELO mail.anuntis.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (EFQIKIUWBFAI SNDBI) id VAQI4E-eI4I5G-nW for ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:38:41 +0300 Message-ID: <02b201c864c6$fe40f030$3e76ac02@Sheryl> From: "Sheryl Rainey" To: "Mamie Norwood" Subject: ***SPAM*** 101.95 (5) Incredible results just in few weeks! Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:38:41 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_688_031A_01C864E0.238E2830" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_688_031A_01C864E0.238E2830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement=20 as your pen!s grows into the biggest, thickest, hardest, and most powerfu= l tool=20 you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve always interested about=20 having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or=20 more effective than VPXL+ - FOREVER}! VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR=20 PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BACK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET=20 VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY! TRY IS TODAY TO GAIN THE LONGEST AND HARDEST PHALLUS IN THIS YEAR! http://domizu=2Ecom/ playoffs=2Eagainst the West Indies in 2003=2E2=2E the elimination of vo= ice mail and call waiting well as the NSW Roads Minister Eric Roozendaal=2E PremierEnsign, which in= cludes the Royal Union=2E ------=_NextPart_688_031A_01C864E0.238E2830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MAXIMIZE YOUR D|K, STRENGTH & PERFORMANCE=

In = just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement as your pen!s
grows into the biggest, thickest, hardest, and most powerf= ul tool
you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve always interested about=
having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or more effective than VPXL+ - FOREVER!

VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR
PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BA= CK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET
VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY!

TRY IS TODAY TO GAIN THE LONGEST AND HARDEST PHALLUS = IN THIS YEAR!


Iran announces that it is partially suspendingCanadians wa= nt their two national flags to fly at Vimy
and suspicious activities" = inside Iranian waterways atplayoffs=2E
against the West Indies in 2003= =2E2=2E the elimination of voice mail and call waiting
well as the N= SW Roads Minister Eric Roozendaal=2E PremierEnsign, which includes the Ro= yal Union=2E ------=_NextPart_688_031A_01C864E0.238E2830-- From NaomiCleveland@thinkprogress.org Fri Feb 1 04:54:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB9B3A680E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:54:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 91.496 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=91.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BODY_ENHANCEMENT2=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date * 0.0 BODY_ENHANCEMENT2 BODY: Information on getting larger body parts * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [200.109.155.238 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [200.109.155.238 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: asresabec.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysHA4wE-afzx for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from compras.grafitos.com.ve (unknown [200.109.155.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C21053A690E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host17942697.thinkprogress.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id lNJeSAgJ14.468718.Nrx.sj8.5985009340458 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:03:59 +0400 Message-ID: 45ce01c864d3$13db8610$2600a8c0@Compras From: "Dr. Naomi Cleveland" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 91.496 (5) Don't be shame by reason of of your shlong size Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:03:59 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Your girlfriend shack up with your mate that is why you're alone. Because of she has always dreamed about big male aggregate. Lengthen your male instrument and you'll forget about this problems finally. This is your possibility to change your sexual life. http://www.asresabec.com From NickolasRoach@textweek.com Fri Feb 1 04:54:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D297D3A6951 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 90.325 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=90.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.309, BODY_ENHANCEMENT2=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ENLRGYOUR=1.02, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date * 0.3 BODY_ENHANCEMENT BODY: Information on growing body parts * 1.0 SARE_ENLRGYOUR BODY: Talks about "enlarging" something * 0.0 BODY_ENHANCEMENT2 BODY: Information on getting larger body parts * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: westalelles.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [200.109.155.238 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [200.109.155.238 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a5EdCNAUkTz9 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from compras.grafitos.com.ve (unknown [200.109.155.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C4AA3A693F for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host15616071.textweek.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id TJiACnnN49.448566.zEC.1bF.3038248316970 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:03:59 +0400 Message-ID: 499b01c864d3$22679570$2600a8c0@Compras From: "Dr. Nickolas Roach" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 90.325 (5) Great jang is the fact that all wife like. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:03:59 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Your wife lived you alone along of she had sex with your mate. His jang is bigger than yours and this is the main reason of leave. Do not panic bro. At present you have wonderful chance to Enlarge your shlong size. Lengthen your device size and you will forget about problems sure enough. http://westalelles.com From dinca-cyanic@advocate.dk Fri Feb 1 06:26:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB3A294229 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 77.404 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=77.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: lefoursm.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: lefoursm.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: lefoursm.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: lefoursm.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: lefoursm.com] * 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server * [62.150.159.25 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [62.150.159.25 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D7whpQIMZCbY for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [62.150.159.25] (unknown [62.150.159.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7E428DC7A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:03:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001201c864db$7e006670$199f963e@abdulmajeed> From: "dinca Beernaert" To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 77.404 (5) You can be assured of success by clicking here. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:05:25 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864F4.A34D9E70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080201-0, 01/02/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864F4.A34D9E70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ensure you do not get left out - get your necessary equipment here. ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864F4.A34D9E70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ensure you do not get left out - = get your=20 necessary equipment here. ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864F4.A34D9E70-- From _daorb@advocate.dk Fri Feb 1 06:31:45 2008 Return-Path: <_daorb@advocate.dk> X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF5328E4A4 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:31:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 86.211 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=86.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FRT_COCK=1.544, FS_HUGECOCK=10.357, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MANGLED_CCK=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_ADLTSUB1=1.66, SARE_OBFU_PART_OCK=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 1.7 SARE_ADLTSUB1 Contains OBFU and "strong" adult words * 10 FS_HUGECOCK Phrase: Huge Cock * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_12 BODY: 1alpha-pock-2alpha * 0.7 SARE_ADLTOBFU BODY: Contains OBFU adult material * 2.3 MANGLED_CCK BODY: mangled (cck(s)) * 1.5 FRT_COCK BODY: ReplaceTags: Cock * 1.7 SARE_OBFU_PART_OCK BODY: obfusciation of word containing ock * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: reginfred.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [62.150.159.25 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server * [62.150.159.25 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reginfred.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reginfred.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reginfred.com] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGg1NYEW5omn for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [62.150.159.25] (unknown [62.150.159.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ABA2A2B04 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:04:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c864db$8cd40620$199f963e@abdulmajeed> From: "Manizeh hanlon" <_daorb@advocate.dk> To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 86.211 (5) Make your dreams for a huge c0ck come true within a few short weeks. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:05:50 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C864F4.B2213E20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080201-0, 01/02/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C864F4.B2213E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You can be assured of success by clicking here. ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C864F4.B2213E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You can be assured of success by = clicking=20 here. ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C864F4.B2213E20-- From Kris.Benoit@somersetpatriots.com Fri Feb 1 09:45:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0303A68B1 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:45:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 75.915 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=75.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SUB_YOUR_WOMAN=1.666, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 1.3 HOST_EQ_BR HOST_EQ_BR * 1.0 HELO_EQ_BR HELO_EQ_BR * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: flywalkswim.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: flywalkswim.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: flywalkswim.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: flywalkswim.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: flywalkswim.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [201.75.51.182 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * 1.7 SARE_SUB_YOUR_WOMAN subject has likely spammer phrase or word * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkiElz0iNxUb for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from acercc8c231681.cpe.vivax.com.br (201-75-51-182-ma.cpe.vivax.com.br [201.75.51.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DC1A528C23E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:44:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:45:09 +0400 Message-ID: 6c5501c864f2$092ff420$6401a8c0@acercc8c231681 From: "Dr. Kris Benoit" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 75.915 (5) For you and your woman MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080201-1, 01-02-2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean You really can make your girl-friend more happy! But how to do this? Here a recipe for you.... More info you can read here: http://flywalkswim.com/ Best regards and have a fervent nights From Alberto.Britt@howstuffworks.com Fri Feb 1 09:45:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011A928C1BE for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:45:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 74.249 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=74.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 1.3 HOST_EQ_BR HOST_EQ_BR * 1.0 HELO_EQ_BR HELO_EQ_BR * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: veshivan.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: veshivan.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: veshivan.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: veshivan.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: veshivan.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [201.75.51.182 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0ONR3MFPUyG for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from acercc8c231681.cpe.vivax.com.br (201-75-51-182-ma.cpe.vivax.com.br [201.75.51.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A900E3A6930 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:44:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:45:09 +0400 Message-ID: 68c001c864f1$fd063ec0$6401a8c0@acercc8c231681 From: "Dr Alberto Britt" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 74.249 (5) For you and your lady MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080201-1, 01-02-2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Use your chance to make your wife more happy! You dont know how? It's more than simply All details are here: http://veshivan.com/ Have a hot love! From _eni{lete@ada-online.de Fri Feb 1 11:12:10 2008 Return-Path: <_eni{lete@ada-online.de> X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E29428C676 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:12:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 74.136 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=74.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 3.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split * IP) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [77.198.183.78 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.6 HELO_MISMATCH_NET HELO_MISMATCH_NET * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSpkxYIc2H9S for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 78.183.198-77.rev.gaoland.net (unknown [77.198.183.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4807D3A6A1A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:06:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000f01c86505$d70bdd60$4eb7c64d@loizeau4eeb2c8> From: "Eland Popovici" <_eni{lete@ada-online.de> To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 74.136 (5) There will be no stopping you after this. Your powers are soon to be unleashed. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:08:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C8650E.38D04560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C8650E.38D04560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Give the girls what they want with your long and hard instrument. ----------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C8650E.38D04560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Give the girls what they want with = your long=20 and hard instrument. ----------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C8650E.38D04560-- From enodnuec@CAYMUS.COM Fri Feb 1 11:43:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE18B3A685A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:43:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 86.218 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=86.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 3.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split * IP) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_13 BODY: 1alpha-pock-3alpha * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [77.198.183.78 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: prphsegee.com] * 1.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX RBL: Envelope sender in * bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: prphsegee.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: prphsegee.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: prphsegee.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: prphsegee.com] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.6 HELO_MISMATCH_NET HELO_MISMATCH_NET * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0cVbnZt5k94 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:43:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 78.183.198-77.rev.gaoland.net (unknown [77.198.183.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F8C3A681A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:43:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000e01c8650a$ed6867e0$4eb7c64d@loizeau4eeb2c8> From: "Ulf Purpur" To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 86.218 (5) Always wondered how others could have some big d1cks? Here's the answer. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:44:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C86513.4F2CCFE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C86513.4F2CCFE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The end to all your frustration lies here - we have the solution to your = woes. ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C86513.4F2CCFE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The end to all your frustration = lies here -=20 we have the solution to your woes. ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C86513.4F2CCFE0-- From eneaid1995@EuroAdres.pl Fri Feb 1 12:01:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A45228C229 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 81.523 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=81.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 0.8 HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: ookbast.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ookbast.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ookbast.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ookbast.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ookbast.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [82.11.151.244 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [82.11.151.244 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJds5LIVrO7t for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc1-ruth3-0-0-cust1011.renf.cable.ntl.com (cpc1-ruth3-0-0-cust1011.renf.cable.ntl.com [82.11.151.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C3928C2EA for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:01:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801c8650d$663022b0$f4970b52@GOLDIE> From: "Carin Eapen" To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 81.523 (5) Assure your masculinity with your new huge rod. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:02:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8650D.663022B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8650D.663022B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The end to all your frustration lies here - we have the solution to your = woes. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8650D.663022B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The end to all your frustration lies = here - we=20 have the solution to your woes. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8650D.663022B0-- From Glynis-enelvriv@EuroAdres.pl Fri Feb 1 12:05:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2033A6976 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:05:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 81.291 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=81.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FRT_ERECTION=3.642, FUZZY_ERECT=0.804, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, MANGLED_ERECTN=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_PART_ION=1.666, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 0.8 HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 4.3 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) * 0.2 SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION Attempt to obfuscate words in Subject: * 3.6 FRT_ERECTION BODY: ReplaceTags: Erection * 2.3 MANGLED_ERECTN BODY: mangled erection(s) * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_33 BODY: 3alpha-pock-3alpha * 1.7 SARE_OBFU_PART_ION BODY: obfusciation of word containing ion * 0.8 FUZZY_ERECT BODY: Attempt to obfuscate words in spam * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_52 BODY: 5alpha-pock-2alpha * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: magefro.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [82.11.151.244 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [82.11.151.244 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HsEepDXta1R for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc1-ruth3-0-0-cust1011.renf.cable.ntl.com (cpc1-ruth3-0-0-cust1011.renf.cable.ntl.com [82.11.151.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA4D3A697F for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:05:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000b01c8650d$f67f0980$f4970b52@GOLDIE> From: "Glynis Muzzin" To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 81.291 (5) Tired of losing your erect1on in 15 minutes, or a small sch1ong? Here is the solution. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:06:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8650D.F67A4E90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8650D.F67A4E90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your own home sex video, and show off your new big schlong to the = world. ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8650D.F67A4E90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your own home sex video, and = show off=20 your new big schlong to the world. ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8650D.F67A4E90-- From Justin-enimtsip@airbrixia.com Tue Feb 5 10:33:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 471FC3A7D90; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from dslnet.85-22-23.ip93.dokom.de (dslnet.85-22-23.ip93.dokom.de [85.22.23.93]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4177928CB39 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:17:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c86802$0d505190$5d171655@DERWXP015> From: "Justin Scheidel" To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: God is fair Try our latest d1ck enlargement pills that is all natural Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:19:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8680A.6F14B990" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8680A.6F14B990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't envy others when you can now also increase your manhood the = natural way ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8680A.6F14B990 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't envy others when you can now = also=20 increase your manhood the natural way ----------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8680A.6F14B990-- From hardenm@metronex.info Tue Feb 5 10:34:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 1E58F3A8B32; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ABTS-mum-dynamic-078.7.169.122.airtelbroadband.in (unknown [122.169.7.78]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E3B0E3A889D for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2500 invoked from network); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:18 +0530 Received: from unknown (HELO pxtpl) (78.184.197.150) by ABTS-mum-dynamic-078.7.169.122.airtelbroadband.in with SMTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:18 +0530 Message-ID: <47A802B6.3020505@metronex.info> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:18 +0530 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Wrapped in Your Arms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A Rose for My Love http://24.7.229.44/ From jrapacz@inforelay.com Tue Feb 5 10:39:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id E5A193A94CB; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms57.hinet.net (unknown [212.48.152.149]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52B323A8B8D for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:18:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 69.26.178.252 (HELO mx2.sitelutions.com) by ietf.org with esmtp (ZLNSQWERSAXT HIQIRM) id VGQoMc-fSxYbH-h0 for ipdvb-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:49 +0300 Message-ID: <000301c867c7$7e5128a0$c0a800bc@Alisha> From: "Alisha Z. Enriquez" To: "Helene G. Aaron" Subject: Giving gifts is more important than getting Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:49 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


__________________________________
EMAIL ID: LrHy4 From irene@abelink.com Tue Feb 5 10:45:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 29D4E3A71D7; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ABTS-mum-dynamic-078.7.169.122.airtelbroadband.in (unknown [122.169.7.78]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1A143A8897 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29144 invoked from network); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:06 +0530 Received: from unknown (HELO avq) (76.203.116.124) by ABTS-mum-dynamic-078.7.169.122.airtelbroadband.in with SMTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:06 +0530 Message-ID: <47A802AA.3080701@abelink.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:06 +0530 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: Memories of You Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You're In My Thoughts http://82.143.158.194/ From _enittis@airbrixia.com Tue Feb 5 10:45:46 2008 Return-Path: <_enittis@airbrixia.com> X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id B5A143A78A0; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:02:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dslnet.85-22-23.ip93.dokom.de (dslnet.85-22-23.ip93.dokom.de [85.22.23.93]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F215128CB32 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:17:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001001c86802$07a92cd0$5d171655@DERWXP015> From: "luca doucett" <_enittis@airbrixia.com> To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: You will leave the women begging for more once you reap the benefits of a larger d1ck Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:18:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8680A.696D94D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8680A.696D94D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Take this c0ck enlargement pill only if you want to attract the best = women ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8680A.696D94D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Take this c0ck enlargement pill = only if=20 you want to attract the best women ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8680A.696D94D0-- From Jumil-soothfas@acaciamora.com.ar Tue Feb 5 10:49:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id EC5A03A709D; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 75-172-51-149.tukw.qwest.net (75-172-51-149.tukw.qwest.net [75.172.51.149]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6762F3A8450 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:51:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801c867b3$0237fe10$9533ac4b@rabbik> From: "Jumil ion" To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Subject: Chicks love a huge dick, get one too. Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:53:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8676F.F414BE10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8676F.F414BE10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Be the Ladies' choice with your brand new big d-!ck. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8676F.F414BE10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Be the Ladies' choice with your = brand new=20 big d-!ck. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8676F.F414BE10-- From parserzv76@britsinc.com Tue Feb 5 11:02:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id BCE4A3A76C2; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from CASITA.telered.net.co (unknown [190.25.223.96]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17013A9859 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [190.25.223.96] by mail.britsinc.com; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:58:17 -0500 From: "Matthew Pratt" To: Subject: AmpleCockRufus Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01c867bc$1a21e280$60df19be@parserzv76> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal ExtensivePenisRyan http://www.tobetobetobe.com From Lawson-nedaznaa@HSTC.EDU.CN Tue Feb 5 11:03:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 07FDC3A6B02; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:38:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from catv-50625d2b.catv.broadband.hu (catv-50625d2b.catv.broadband.hu [80.98.93.43]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E9A3A813A for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:33:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801c867a8$0ffb4030$2b5d6250@tarczyf5a78370> From: "Lawson Sarig" To: ipdvb-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Satisfy your chick's inner desires by clicking here. Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:34:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C867B0.71B37330" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C867B0.71B37330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Never feel inadequate again with your brand new huge p3nis. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C867B0.71B37330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Never feel inadequate again with = your brand=20 new huge p3nis. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C867B0.71B37330-- From refund@usa.gov Tue Feb 5 11:03:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipdvb-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 91D193A6CA1; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ta-cal-srv001.travelarm.com (rrcs-67-52-186-66.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.186.66]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282D23AA043; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from User ([151.12.152.26]) by ta-cal-srv001.travelarm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:40:11 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service U.S.A" Subject: Important Message From IRS Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13.34.17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2008 12:40:11.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FC3B210:01C867F4] To: undisclosed-recipients:;

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $93.60. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access your tax refund online, please click here

Regards,
Internal Revenue Service
 
  © Copyright 2007, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved..
From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sun Feb 17 14:09:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A463A6B97 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:09:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j4mNNsqzlfHo for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C7D3A6E1A for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1HKQlht013746 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:26:47 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1HKQlZI013745 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:26:47 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Silver.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1HKQJOI013727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:26:20 GMT Message-ID: <47B89874.80009@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:26:28 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst Organization: School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Scotland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: [Fwd: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000901050309020404010504" X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000901050309020404010504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am forwarding this to the list, for comments and discussion. best wishes, Gorry Fairhurst (as ipdvb Chair) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:39:12 +0800 From: Ang Way Chuang To: Gorry Fairhurst Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains Malaysia (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to seek for your comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. Attached is the draft. Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was copied from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are still incomplete. I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I received no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not working properly. Thank you very much. Regards, Ang Way Chuang --------------000901050309020404010504 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-rohc-dvb.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-rohc-dvb.txt" Tat-Chee Wan Chee-Hong Teh Way-Chuang Ang Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and MPEG2-TS frames Status of This Memo This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Intellectual Property Right By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Abstract This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS frames. For completeness, ROHC channel parameters negotiation protocol is also presented. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Terminology 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet 3.1. ROHC over ULE 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS 4. Establishing ROHC Channel 4.1. ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation 4.1.3. Request 4.1.4. Reply 4.1.4.1. Medium Information 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown 4.2. Interaction of ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels 5. IANA Consideration 6. References 1. Introduction 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. DVB Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. MAC Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 [DIX]). MPEG-2 A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.222 [ITU-H222]). PDU Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. Receiver Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the link layer). Transmitter Router or host that sends data. SNDU SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 Payload Unit. TS Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast applications such as DVB and ATSC. ULE Stream An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a stream_type in SI/PSI [ISO-MPEG2]. ROHC Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers of IP packet as defined in [RFC 3095] ROHC channel A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. ROHC profile A ROHC profile is a compression protocol, which specifies how to compress specific header combinations. A ROHC profile may be tailored to handle a specific set of link characteristics, e.g., loss characteristics, reordering between compression points, etc. ROHC profiles provide the details of the header compression and each compression profile is associated with a unique ROHC profile identifier. MRRU Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in [RFC 3095]. DVB Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. Context Identifier [RFC 3095] provides a definition for context identifiers. MSB Most significant bit. LSB Least significant bit. ACK Acknowledgement. NACK Negative acknowledgement. CID Context Identifier. 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet 3.1. ROHC over ULE The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the following two formats: 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ |D| Length |Type=ROHC| Dest Address* | ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ Figure 1: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated using dedicated EtherType The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and CRC-32 fields are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields requires a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet in PDU. In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU without Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple receivers are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be included in SNDU. 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+------------------------+--------+ |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHC| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+------------------------+--------+ Figure 2: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated in SNDU bridged frame This packet format should be used when there are multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar to Type Field in section 3.1.1. 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms of packet size. The format of SNDU is the following format: +------+------------------------+--------+ |Length| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | +------+------------------------+--------+ Figure 3: The meaning of each fields is specified below: Length: This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field only. This field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most significant bit. If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field is 1 octet and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length of this field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. ROHC Compressed Packet: ROHC compressed packet as defined in section 5.2 of [RFC 3095]. CRC-32: The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC compressed packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding mode. The mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation of ULE packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID dedicated to a ROHC channel. 4. Establishing ROHC Channel This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over a DVB link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This requires that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to manually configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is small, this approach is favourable. But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is dynamic and is not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we presents a negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section. 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is possible to extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation [GSE] in the future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. Since new EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC 3077] with little modifications. The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such: +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ |D=1| Length |Type=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ Figure 4: Minimal format of RCPNP message +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+--------+ |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+--------+ Figure 5: RCPNP message encapsulated in bridged frame. Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number for ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this protocol is defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain the type of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and Compressor Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other forms of messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such: MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version | Operation | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 6: Basic format of RCPNP Body field. Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type of message contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on operation type. 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=0 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Address (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 7: Format of Compressor Advertisement message. Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise the availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send too many advertisements. The decompressor site will use the value specified in the Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=1 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 8: Format of Compressor Solicitation message. Instead of waiting for compressor site to advertise itself, decompressor site may opt to solicit for compressor(s) by sending compressor site solicitation message. Upon receiving solicitation, compressor site should send an advertisement. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor site should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't receive any advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link. 4.1.3. Request MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=2 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Maximum CID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Num of profiles + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 1 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 2 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID N + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 9: Format of Request message. This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum CID: Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by decompressor. Value of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for segmentation of ROHC compressed packet. Number of profiles: Number of profiles supported by decompressor. Profile IDs: ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile ID occupy 2 octets. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.4. Reply MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=3 | X | +===============================================+ | | + Maximum CID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Num of profiles | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 1 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 2 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID N + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 10: Format of Reply message. This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in response to request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum CID: Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of this field should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID that is higher than the initial negotiated value. MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. Likewise, decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU than what it requested. Number of profile IDs: Note that this field is 1 octet instead of 2 because there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can support. Profile IDs: Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be used for the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.4.1. Medium Information The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 indicates the presence of medium information. +===============================================+ Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed packets to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely MPEG2-TS and ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is described in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media may be supported in the future and the support for these media will specified in other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type should send a NACK. 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Medium=0 | | +-----+-----+-----+ PID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 11: Medium information for ROHC over MPEG2-TS. PID: Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC compressed packet. 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Medium=1 | ULE Type | Reserved | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 12: Medium information for ROHC over ULE. ULE Type: 0: No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should only be used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one receiver and one transmitter over DVB link. 1: Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that carry ROHC compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE header will be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter and many receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. 2: ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. This option is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. 3: Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a timeout occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation afresh by sending a Request message. Reserved field is not used and should be ignored. 4.1.5. Acknowledgement MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=4 | Ack | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 13: Format of Acknowledgement message. Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit is set, then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK within a reasonable interval, it should discard any information of negotiated ROHC channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to decompressor site when compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message. 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=5 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 14: Format of Compressor Shutdown message. This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the decompressor site that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, decompressor should release all resources that are being held. Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=6 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 15: Format of Decompressor Shutdown message. This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the compressor that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, compressor should release all resources that are being held and stop sending compressed IP packets. Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between compressor site and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters. Compressor Site Decompressor Site |<------------ Solicit (optional) ----------------| | | |------------------- Advertise ------------------>| | | |<------------------- Request --------------------| | | |--------------------- Reply -------------------->| | | Create instance | | of decompressor Create |<-------------------- ACK -----------------------| compressor | | | | | ==== (Compression can begin at this point) === | | | | | Destroy |<------------ Decompressor Shutdown -------------| compressor | | |--------------------- ACK ---------------------->| Destroy | | decompressor Figure 15: Packets flow of RCPNP 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use of ROHC bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP doesn't concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC channels. Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as straightforward as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels. 5. IANA Consideration Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the other is to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet. 6. References [RFC 3095] Bormann, C. et al, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, 2001 [RFC 4326] Fairhurst, G. and Collini-Nocker, B., "Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for Transmission of IP Datagrams over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS)", RFC 4326, 2005 [GSE] Digital Video Broadcasting, "Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) Protocol", DVB Document A116, 2007 [RFC 3077] Duros, E. et al, "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional Links", RFC 3077, 2001 [ISO-MPEG2] IS 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: Systems", International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000. Authors’ Addresses Tat-Chee Wan School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. Email: tcwan@cs.usm.my Web: http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan Chee-Hong Teh School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. Email: chteh@nav6.org Way-Chuang Ang School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. Email: wcang@nav6.org --------------000901050309020404010504-- From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon Feb 18 00:24:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C8C28C120 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:24:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2dCwVOWv+Ex for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:24:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA14D28C113 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1I7xdhF029831 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:59:39 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1I7xdaf029830 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:59:39 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1I7xKNx029803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:59:20 GMT Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m1I7wRiE002111 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:59:13 +0200 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:59:10 +0200 Received: from vaebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.11]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:59:10 +0200 Received: from 172.16.42.135 ([172.16.42.135]) by vaebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.11]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:59:10 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:59:06 +0200 Subject: Re: [Fwd: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB] From: "Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere)" To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fwd: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB] Thread-Index: AchyBCI+YIL9Xt33Edy3QAAX8ic2PA== In-Reply-To: <47B89874.80009@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2008 07:59:10.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[250D8DA0:01C87204] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by erg.abdn.ac.uk id m1I7xd3B029827 Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Hi All et al :) Quick comments and questions... > 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) > The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site > and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional > DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the > sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two > sites. * Why such a limitation? Is there already a preferred where the secondary link is bidirectional or can not be relied upon at all? > 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement ... > Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise the > availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send too many > advertisements. * What about indicating from, compressor or decompressor, when such a heartbeat should be expected (Sorry if it was there but I missed this). At least the interval/period would limit the "promiscuous listing" to one period only, afterwards the decompressor can "sleep more". Apart from altruistic energy saving reasons, any mobile application is going to want as many opportunities to preserve power as possible. Some argumentation needs making at the very least oin this mail list, but preferably also in the I-D (maybe as an annex for easy removal later if it gets adopted). * What are the alternatives to this scheme based on ROHC? * How similar to other ROHC profiles is this? Does it break or invent some new semantic or is it exactly parallel to some existing RFC? * Is there any effect on header compression at higher layers? E.g. If the spec interferes with using RTP/UDP/IP ROHC, then any efficiencies could be lost in the inability for the compression of heaver headers. Likewise, it makes sense to keep this ULE part isolated if possible so that authors of any other or future ROHC compression schemes aren't required to know about this spec while still allowing ULE implementers to benefit from ULE and higher layer ROHC together. Cheers, Rod. PS Good timing of the email Gorry - I was doing my 2-monthly stroll through IETF mails :) On 2/17/08 10:26 PM, "ext Gorry Fairhurst" wrote: > > I am forwarding this to the list, for comments and discussion. > > best wishes, > > Gorry Fairhurst > (as ipdvb Chair) > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:39:12 +0800 > From: Ang Way Chuang > To: Gorry Fairhurst > > Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, > We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains Malaysia > (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to seek for your > comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. Attached is the draft. > Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was copied > from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are still incomplete. > > I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I received > no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not working properly. > > > Thank you very much. > > Regards, > Ang Way Chuang > > > > Tat-Chee Wan > Chee-Hong Teh > Way-Chuang > Ang > > Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) > and MPEG2-TS frames > > Status of This Memo > > This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet > community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. > Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. > Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > > Intellectual Property Right > > By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any > applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware > have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes > aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. > > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other > groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months > and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any > time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference > material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > > The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html > > The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > Abstract > > This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS > frames. For completeness, ROHC channel parameters negotiation protocol is > also > presented. > > Table of Contents > > 1. Introduction > 2. Terminology > 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet > 3.1. ROHC over ULE > 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet > 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet > 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet > 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS > 4. Establishing ROHC Channel > 4.1. ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol > 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement > 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation > 4.1.3. Request > 4.1.4. Reply > 4.1.4.1. Medium Information > 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium > 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium > 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement > 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown > 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown > 4.2. Interaction of ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol > 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels > 5. IANA Consideration > 6. References > > 1. Introduction > > 2. Terminology > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. > > DVB > Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated > standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards > Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data > using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. > > MAC > Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol defined > by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 [DIX]). > > MPEG-2 > A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts > Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards > Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.222 > [ITU-H222]). > > PDU > Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, > IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. > > Receiver > Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and > performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the > network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the > link layer). > > Transmitter > Router or host that sends data. > > SNDU > SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 > Payload Unit. > > TS > Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, > Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow > multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the > output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for > transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast > applications such as DVB and ATSC. > > ULE Stream > An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated > PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a > stream_type in SI/PSI [ISO-MPEG2]. > > ROHC > Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers of IP > packet as defined in [RFC 3095] > > ROHC channel > A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets > from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC > feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor > pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. > > ROHC profile > A ROHC profile is a compression protocol, which specifies how to > compress > specific header combinations. A ROHC profile may be tailored to handle a > specific set of link characteristics, e.g., loss characteristics, > reordering between compression points, etc. ROHC profiles provide the > details of the header compression and each compression profile is > associated with a unique ROHC profile identifier. > > MRRU > Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in [RFC 3095]. > > DVB > Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards > published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) > for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 > Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. > > Context Identifier > [RFC 3095] provides a definition for context identifiers. > > MSB > Most significant bit. > > LSB > Least significant bit. > > ACK > Acknowledgement. > > NACK > Negative acknowledgement. > > CID > Context Identifier. > > 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet > > 3.1. ROHC over ULE > The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the following > two formats: > > 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet > +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ > |D| Length |Type=ROHC| Dest Address* | ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | > +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ > Figure 1: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated using dedicated EtherType > > The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and CRC-32 fields > are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields requires > a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC > compressed packet in PDU. > > In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU > without > Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple receivers > are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be included > in SNDU. > > 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet > > > +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- > ----------+--------+ > |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHC| ROHC > compressed packet | CRC-32 | > > +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- > ----------+--------+ > Figure 2: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated in SNDU bridged frame > > This packet format should be used when there are multiple transmitters and > receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar to Type > Field in section 3.1.1. > > 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS > This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms of packet > size. The format of SNDU is the following format: > > +------+------------------------+--------+ > |Length| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | > +------+------------------------+--------+ > Figure 3: > > The meaning of each fields is specified below: > > Length: This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field only. This > field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most significant > bit. > If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field is 1 octet > and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length of this > field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. > > ROHC Compressed Packet: ROHC compressed packet as defined in section 5.2 > of > [RFC 3095]. > > CRC-32: The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC compressed > packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. > > Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding mode. The > mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation of ULE > packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID dedicated > to a ROHC channel. > > 4. Establishing ROHC Channel > This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over a DVB > link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This requires > that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to manually > configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is small, > this approach is favourable. > > But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is dynamic and is > not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we presents a > negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section. > > 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) > The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site > and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional > DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the > sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two > sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is possible to > extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation [GSE] in the > future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over > asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. Since new > EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link > via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC 3077] with little modifications. > > The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such: > > +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ > |D=1| Length |Type=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | > +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ > Figure 4: Minimal format of RCPNP message > > > +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- > ----+ > |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHCNeg| Body | > CRC-32 | > > +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- > ----+ > Figure 5: RCPNP message encapsulated in bridged frame. > > Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number for ROHC > Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this protocol is > defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain the type > of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and Compressor > Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other forms of > messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. > > The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such: > > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version | Operation | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 6: Basic format of RCPNP Body field. > > Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type of message > contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on operation > type. > > 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement > > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=0 | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > ~ Address (6 octets) ~ > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 7: Format of Compressor Advertisement message. > > Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise the > availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send too many > advertisements. The decompressor site will use the value specified in the > Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and should > be > ignored. > > 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation > > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=1 | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 8: Format of Compressor Solicitation message. > > Instead of waiting for compressor site to advertise itself, decompressor > site > may opt to solicit for compressor(s) by sending compressor site > solicitation > message. Upon receiving solicitation, compressor site should send an > advertisement. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor site > should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't receive > any advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link. > > 4.1.3. Request > > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=2 | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Maximum CID + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Num of profiles + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID 1 + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID 2 + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID N + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 9: Format of Request message. > > This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site. The meaning > of each fields in the message are described below: > > Maximum CID: Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. > > MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by decompressor. Value > of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for segmentation of > ROHC > compressed packet. > > Number of profiles: Number of profiles supported by decompressor. > > Profile IDs: ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile > ID occupy 2 octets. > > X-bit is unused and should be ignored. > > 4.1.4. Reply > > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=3 | X | > +===============================================+ > | | > + Maximum CID + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Num of profiles | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID 1 + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID 2 + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | | > + Profile ID N + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 10: Format of Reply message. > > This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in response to > request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each fields in > the > message are described below: > > Maximum CID: Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of this field > should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. > Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID that is > higher than the initial negotiated value. > > MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. > Likewise, > decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU than > what > it requested. > > Number of profile IDs: Note that this field is 1 octet instead of 2 because > there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. > Decompressor > site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can > support. > > Profile IDs: Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be used for > the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it > receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. > > X-bit is unused and should be ignored. > > 4.1.4.1. Medium Information > The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 indicates the > presence of medium information. > > +===============================================+ > > Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed > packets > to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely MPEG2-TS and > ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is described > in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media may be > supported in the future and the support for these media will specified in > other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type should send > a NACK. > > 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Medium=0 | | > +-----+-----+-----+ PID + > | | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 11: Medium information for ROHC over MPEG2-TS. > > PID: Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC compressed > packet. > > 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Medium=1 | ULE Type | Reserved | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 12: Medium information for ROHC over ULE. > > ULE Type: > > 0: No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should only be > used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one receiver and > one transmitter over DVB link. > > 1: Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that carry ROHC > compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE header > will > be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter and many > receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. > > 2: ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. This option > is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. > > 3: Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently > discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a timeout > occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation afresh by > sending a Request message. > > Reserved field is not used and should be ignored. > > 4.1.5. Acknowledgement > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=4 | Ack | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 13: Format of Acknowledgement message. > > Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative > acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit is set, > then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative > acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK within a > reasonable interval, it should discard any information of negotiated ROHC > channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to decompressor site > when > compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message. > > 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=5 | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 14: Format of Compressor Shutdown message. > > This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the decompressor site > that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this > message, decompressor should release all resources that are being held. > > Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site before > freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable > interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times > before freeing its resource. > > X-bit is unused and should be ignored. > > 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown > MSB LSB > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > | Version=0 | Operation=6 | X | > +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ > Figure 15: Format of Decompressor Shutdown message. > > This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the compressor > that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving this > message, compressor should release all resources that are being held and > stop > sending compressed IP packets. > > Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site before > freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable > interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times > before freeing its resource. > > X-bit is unused and should be ignored. > > 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP > The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between compressor > site > and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters. > > Compressor Site Decompressor Site > |<------------ Solicit (optional) ----------------| > | | > |------------------- Advertise ------------------>| > | | > |<------------------- Request --------------------| > | | > |--------------------- Reply -------------------->| > | | Create > instance > | | of > decompressor > Create |<-------------------- ACK -----------------------| > compressor | | > | | > | ==== (Compression can begin at this point) === | > | | > | | > Destroy |<------------ Decompressor Shutdown -------------| > compressor | | > |--------------------- ACK ---------------------->| Destroy > | | decompressor > > Figure 15: Packets flow of RCPNP > > > 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels > While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use of ROHC > bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP > doesn't > concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC channels. > Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support > bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as > straightforward > as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels. > > 5. IANA Consideration > Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the other is > to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet. > > 6. References > [RFC 3095] Bormann, C. et al, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): > Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", > RFC 3095, 2001 > > [RFC 4326] Fairhurst, G. and Collini-Nocker, B., "Unidirectional > Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for Transmission of IP > Datagrams > over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS)", RFC 4326, 2005 > > [GSE] Digital Video Broadcasting, "Generic Stream Encapsulation > (GSE) > Protocol", DVB Document A116, 2007 > > [RFC 3077] Duros, E. et al, "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for > Unidirectional Links", RFC 3077, 2001 > > [ISO-MPEG2] IS 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic coding of > moving > pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: Systems", > International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000. > > > Authors’ Addresses > Tat-Chee Wan > School of Computer Sciences, > Universiti Sains Malaysia, > 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. > Email: tcwan@cs.usm.my > Web: http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan > > Chee-Hong Teh > School of Computer Sciences, > Universiti Sains Malaysia, > 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. > Email: chteh@nav6.org > > Way-Chuang Ang > School of Computer Sciences, > Universiti Sains Malaysia, > 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. > Email: wcang@nav6.org > > > From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon Feb 18 02:09:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81FE28C0EC for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:09:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VAc+DuUPEaco for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB6428C2C8 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1I9Wdsf006500 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:32:39 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1I9Wdu2006499 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:32:39 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from nav6.org (mail.nrg.cs.usm.my [219.93.2.104] (may be forged)) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1I9Vw4R006456 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:31:59 GMT Received: from [10.207.161.239] (unknown [10.207.161.239]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nav6.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647B41D600D9; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:43:52 +0800 (MYT) Message-ID: <47B95080.8040606@nav6.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:31:44 +0800 From: Ang Way Chuang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Rod.Walsh@nokia.com CC: TC Wan Subject: Re: [Fwd: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere) wrote: > Hi All et al :) > > Quick comments and questions... > >> 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) >> The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site >> and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional >> DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the >> sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two >> sites. > > * Why such a limitation? Is there already a preferred where the secondary > link is bidirectional or can not be relied upon at all? Our research focuses on UDL mesh network (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan/Papers/APAN00-WAN-UDL.pdf). We do not consider other scenarios like asymmetrical links. But I suppose it can work on other scenarios. It will be great if someone can provide input for this. > >> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement > ... >> Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise the >> availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send too many >> advertisements. > > * What about indicating from, compressor or decompressor, when such a > heartbeat should be expected (Sorry if it was there but I missed this). At > least the interval/period would limit the "promiscuous listing" to one > period only, afterwards the decompressor can "sleep more". Apart from > altruistic energy saving reasons, any mobile application is going to want as > many opportunities to preserve power as possible. I suppose we can include heartbeat interval inside Compressor Advertisement message. As for decompressor site, I'm not sure how compressor can benefit from such information. > > > Some argumentation needs making at the very least oin this mail list, but > preferably also in the I-D (maybe as an annex for easy removal later if it > gets adopted). I beg ignorance on the I-D matter. > > * What are the alternatives to this scheme based on ROHC? I'm not sure what you meant. You mean way to carry other type of header compression (e.g IP Header Compression) over DVB? > > * How similar to other ROHC profiles is this? Does it break or invent some > new semantic or is it exactly parallel to some existing RFC? This draft doesn't create new ROHC profiles. It only defines ways to carry ROHC compressed packet over DVB and negotiation protocol to setup ROHC channel. > > * Is there any effect on header compression at higher layers? E.g. If the > spec interferes with using RTP/UDP/IP ROHC, then any efficiencies could be > lost in the inability for the compression of heaver headers. Likewise, it > makes sense to keep this ULE part isolated if possible so that authors of > any other or future ROHC compression schemes aren't required to know about > this spec while still allowing ULE implementers to benefit from ULE and > higher layer ROHC together. No, it doesn't. Thank you for your interest. > > Cheers, Rod. > > PS Good timing of the email Gorry - I was doing my 2-monthly stroll through > IETF mails :) > Regards, Ang Way-Chuang > > > On 2/17/08 10:26 PM, "ext Gorry Fairhurst" wrote: > >> I am forwarding this to the list, for comments and discussion. >> >> best wishes, >> >> Gorry Fairhurst >> (as ipdvb Chair) >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB >> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:39:12 +0800 >> From: Ang Way Chuang >> To: Gorry Fairhurst >> >> Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, >> We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains Malaysia >> (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to seek for your >> comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. Attached is the draft. >> Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was copied >> from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are still incomplete. >> >> I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I received >> no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not working properly. >> >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> Regards, >> Ang Way Chuang >> >> >> >> Tat-Chee Wan >> Chee-Hong Teh >> Way-Chuang >> Ang >> >> Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) >> and MPEG2-TS frames >> >> Status of This Memo >> >> This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet >> community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. >> Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. >> Distribution of this memo is unlimited. >> >> Intellectual Property Right >> >> By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any >> applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware >> have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes >> aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. >> >> Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering >> Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other >> groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. >> >> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months >> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any >> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference >> material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." >> >> The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at >> http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html >> >> The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at >> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> >> Abstract >> >> This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS >> frames. For completeness, ROHC channel parameters negotiation protocol is >> also >> presented. >> >> Table of Contents >> >> 1. Introduction >> 2. Terminology >> 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet >> 3.1. ROHC over ULE >> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >> 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet >> 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS >> 4. Establishing ROHC Channel >> 4.1. ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol >> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement >> 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation >> 4.1.3. Request >> 4.1.4. Reply >> 4.1.4.1. Medium Information >> 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium >> 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium >> 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement >> 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown >> 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown >> 4.2. Interaction of ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol >> 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels >> 5. IANA Consideration >> 6. References >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> 2. Terminology >> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >> document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. >> >> DVB >> Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated >> standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards >> Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data >> using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. >> >> MAC >> Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol defined >> by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 [DIX]). >> >> MPEG-2 >> A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts >> Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards >> Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.222 >> [ITU-H222]). >> >> PDU >> Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, >> IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. >> >> Receiver >> Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and >> performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the >> network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the >> link layer). >> >> Transmitter >> Router or host that sends data. >> >> SNDU >> SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 >> Payload Unit. >> >> TS >> Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, >> Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow >> multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the >> output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for >> transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast >> applications such as DVB and ATSC. >> >> ULE Stream >> An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated >> PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a >> stream_type in SI/PSI [ISO-MPEG2]. >> >> ROHC >> Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers of IP >> packet as defined in [RFC 3095] >> >> ROHC channel >> A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets >> from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC >> feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor >> pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. >> >> ROHC profile >> A ROHC profile is a compression protocol, which specifies how to >> compress >> specific header combinations. A ROHC profile may be tailored to handle a >> specific set of link characteristics, e.g., loss characteristics, >> reordering between compression points, etc. ROHC profiles provide the >> details of the header compression and each compression profile is >> associated with a unique ROHC profile identifier. >> >> MRRU >> Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in [RFC 3095]. >> >> DVB >> Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards >> published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) >> for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 >> Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. >> >> Context Identifier >> [RFC 3095] provides a definition for context identifiers. >> >> MSB >> Most significant bit. >> >> LSB >> Least significant bit. >> >> ACK >> Acknowledgement. >> >> NACK >> Negative acknowledgement. >> >> CID >> Context Identifier. >> >> 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet >> >> 3.1. ROHC over ULE >> The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the following >> two formats: >> >> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >> +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ >> |D| Length |Type=ROHC| Dest Address* | ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | >> +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ >> Figure 1: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated using dedicated EtherType >> >> The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and CRC-32 fields >> are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields requires >> a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC >> compressed packet in PDU. >> >> In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU >> without >> Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple receivers >> are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be included >> in SNDU. >> >> 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet >> >> >> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- >> ----------+--------+ >> |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHC| ROHC >> compressed packet | CRC-32 | >> >> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- >> ----------+--------+ >> Figure 2: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated in SNDU bridged frame >> >> This packet format should be used when there are multiple transmitters and >> receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar to Type >> Field in section 3.1.1. >> >> 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS >> This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms of packet >> size. The format of SNDU is the following format: >> >> +------+------------------------+--------+ >> |Length| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | >> +------+------------------------+--------+ >> Figure 3: >> >> The meaning of each fields is specified below: >> >> Length: This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field only. This >> field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most significant >> bit. >> If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field is 1 octet >> and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length of this >> field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. >> >> ROHC Compressed Packet: ROHC compressed packet as defined in section 5.2 >> of >> [RFC 3095]. >> >> CRC-32: The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC compressed >> packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. >> >> Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding mode. The >> mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation of ULE >> packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID dedicated >> to a ROHC channel. >> >> 4. Establishing ROHC Channel >> This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over a DVB >> link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This requires >> that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to manually >> configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is small, >> this approach is favourable. >> >> But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is dynamic and is >> not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we presents a >> negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section. >> >> 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) >> The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site >> and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional >> DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the >> sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two >> sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is possible to >> extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation [GSE] in the >> future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over >> asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. Since new >> EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link >> via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC 3077] with little modifications. >> >> The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such: >> >> +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ >> |D=1| Length |Type=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | >> +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ >> Figure 4: Minimal format of RCPNP message >> >> >> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- >> ----+ >> |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHCNeg| Body | >> CRC-32 | >> >> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- >> ----+ >> Figure 5: RCPNP message encapsulated in bridged frame. >> >> Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number for ROHC >> Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this protocol is >> defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain the type >> of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and Compressor >> Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other forms of >> messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. >> >> The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such: >> >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version | Operation | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 6: Basic format of RCPNP Body field. >> >> Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type of message >> contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on operation >> type. >> >> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement >> >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=0 | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> ~ Address (6 octets) ~ >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 7: Format of Compressor Advertisement message. >> >> Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise the >> availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send too many >> advertisements. The decompressor site will use the value specified in the >> Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and should >> be >> ignored. >> >> 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation >> >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=1 | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 8: Format of Compressor Solicitation message. >> >> Instead of waiting for compressor site to advertise itself, decompressor >> site >> may opt to solicit for compressor(s) by sending compressor site >> solicitation >> message. Upon receiving solicitation, compressor site should send an >> advertisement. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor site >> should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't receive >> any advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link. >> >> 4.1.3. Request >> >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=2 | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Maximum CID + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Num of profiles + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID 1 + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID 2 + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID N + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 9: Format of Request message. >> >> This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site. The meaning >> of each fields in the message are described below: >> >> Maximum CID: Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. >> >> MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by decompressor. Value >> of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for segmentation of >> ROHC >> compressed packet. >> >> Number of profiles: Number of profiles supported by decompressor. >> >> Profile IDs: ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile >> ID occupy 2 octets. >> >> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >> >> 4.1.4. Reply >> >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=3 | X | >> +===============================================+ >> | | >> + Maximum CID + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Num of profiles | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID 1 + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID 2 + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | | >> + Profile ID N + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 10: Format of Reply message. >> >> This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in response to >> request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each fields in >> the >> message are described below: >> >> Maximum CID: Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of this field >> should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. >> Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID that is >> higher than the initial negotiated value. >> >> MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. >> Likewise, >> decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU than >> what >> it requested. >> >> Number of profile IDs: Note that this field is 1 octet instead of 2 because >> there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. >> Decompressor >> site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can >> support. >> >> Profile IDs: Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be used for >> the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it >> receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. >> >> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >> >> 4.1.4.1. Medium Information >> The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 indicates the >> presence of medium information. >> >> +===============================================+ >> >> Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed >> packets >> to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely MPEG2-TS and >> ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is described >> in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media may be >> supported in the future and the support for these media will specified in >> other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type should send >> a NACK. >> >> 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Medium=0 | | >> +-----+-----+-----+ PID + >> | | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 11: Medium information for ROHC over MPEG2-TS. >> >> PID: Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC compressed >> packet. >> >> 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Medium=1 | ULE Type | Reserved | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 12: Medium information for ROHC over ULE. >> >> ULE Type: >> >> 0: No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should only be >> used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one receiver and >> one transmitter over DVB link. >> >> 1: Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that carry ROHC >> compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE header >> will >> be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter and many >> receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. >> >> 2: ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. This option >> is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. >> >> 3: Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently >> discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a timeout >> occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation afresh by >> sending a Request message. >> >> Reserved field is not used and should be ignored. >> >> 4.1.5. Acknowledgement >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=4 | Ack | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 13: Format of Acknowledgement message. >> >> Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative >> acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit is set, >> then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative >> acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK within a >> reasonable interval, it should discard any information of negotiated ROHC >> channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to decompressor site >> when >> compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message. >> >> 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=5 | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 14: Format of Compressor Shutdown message. >> >> This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the decompressor site >> that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this >> message, decompressor should release all resources that are being held. >> >> Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site before >> freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable >> interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times >> before freeing its resource. >> >> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >> >> 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown >> MSB LSB >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> | Version=0 | Operation=6 | X | >> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >> Figure 15: Format of Decompressor Shutdown message. >> >> This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the compressor >> that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving this >> message, compressor should release all resources that are being held and >> stop >> sending compressed IP packets. >> >> Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site before >> freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable >> interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times >> before freeing its resource. >> >> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >> >> 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP >> The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between compressor >> site >> and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters. >> >> Compressor Site Decompressor Site >> |<------------ Solicit (optional) ----------------| >> | | >> |------------------- Advertise ------------------>| >> | | >> |<------------------- Request --------------------| >> | | >> |--------------------- Reply -------------------->| >> | | Create >> instance >> | | of >> decompressor >> Create |<-------------------- ACK -----------------------| >> compressor | | >> | | >> | ==== (Compression can begin at this point) === | >> | | >> | | >> Destroy |<------------ Decompressor Shutdown -------------| >> compressor | | >> |--------------------- ACK ---------------------->| Destroy >> | | decompressor >> >> Figure 15: Packets flow of RCPNP >> >> >> 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels >> While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use of ROHC >> bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP >> doesn't >> concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC channels. >> Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support >> bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as >> straightforward >> as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels. >> >> 5. IANA Consideration >> Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the other is >> to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet. >> >> 6. References >> [RFC 3095] Bormann, C. et al, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): >> Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", >> RFC 3095, 2001 >> >> [RFC 4326] Fairhurst, G. and Collini-Nocker, B., "Unidirectional >> Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for Transmission of IP >> Datagrams >> over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS)", RFC 4326, 2005 >> >> [GSE] Digital Video Broadcasting, "Generic Stream Encapsulation >> (GSE) >> Protocol", DVB Document A116, 2007 >> >> [RFC 3077] Duros, E. et al, "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for >> Unidirectional Links", RFC 3077, 2001 >> >> [ISO-MPEG2] IS 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic coding of >> moving >> pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: Systems", >> International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000. >> >> >> Authors’ Addresses >> Tat-Chee Wan >> School of Computer Sciences, >> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >> Email: tcwan@cs.usm.my >> Web: http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan >> >> Chee-Hong Teh >> School of Computer Sciences, >> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >> Email: chteh@nav6.org >> >> Way-Chuang Ang >> School of Computer Sciences, >> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >> Email: wcang@nav6.org >> >> >> > > > From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon Feb 18 08:12:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C6128C279 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:12:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJ33aXLaUde1 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:12:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645BA28C27B for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1IFo8f1017223 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:50:08 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1IFo8d7017222 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:50:08 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from nav6.org (mail.nrg.cs.usm.my [219.93.2.104] (may be forged)) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1IFnX6V017190 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:49:39 GMT Received: from [10.207.161.239] (unknown [10.207.161.239]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nav6.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB07C1D600D9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:01:22 +0800 (MYT) Message-ID: <47B9A8F3.4040309@nav6.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:49:07 +0800 From: Ang Way Chuang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk CC: Rod.Walsh@nokia.com, TC Wan Subject: Re: [Fwd: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB] References: <47B95080.8040606@nav6.org> In-Reply-To: <47B95080.8040606@nav6.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Ang Way Chuang wrote: > Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere) wrote: >> Hi All et al :) >> >> Quick comments and questions... >> >>> 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) >>> The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor >>> site >>> and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated >>> unidirectional >>> DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the >>> sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the >>> two >>> sites. >> >> * Why such a limitation? Is there already a preferred where the secondary >> link is bidirectional or can not be relied upon at all? > > Our research focuses on UDL mesh network > (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan/Papers/APAN00-WAN-UDL.pdf). We do not > consider other scenarios like asymmetrical links. But I suppose it can > work on other scenarios. It will be great if someone can provide input > for this. > >> >>> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement >> ... >>> Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise >>> the >>> availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send >>> too many >>> advertisements. >> >> * What about indicating from, compressor or decompressor, when such a >> heartbeat should be expected (Sorry if it was there but I missed >> this). At >> least the interval/period would limit the "promiscuous listing" to one >> period only, afterwards the decompressor can "sleep more". Apart from >> altruistic energy saving reasons, any mobile application is going to >> want as >> many opportunities to preserve power as possible. > > I suppose we can include heartbeat interval inside Compressor > Advertisement message. As for decompressor site, I'm not sure how > compressor can benefit from such information. > Hmm, silly me. I think the best approach for these mobile applications is to ignore Compressor Advertisement message. If it needs to know the presence of compressor(s), it can send a solicitation message. There is not much point of waking up applications/devices every few seconds just to listen to the message with same content. Better still, if periodical transmission of Compressor Advertisement is undesirable due to consumption of electricity and bandwidth, then we can change the way the protocol works. In effect, the Compressor Advertisement will be a reactive message that is only sent if compressor site receives a Compressor Solicitation message from Decompressor. Any other suggestion? >> >> >> Some argumentation needs making at the very least oin this mail list, but >> preferably also in the I-D (maybe as an annex for easy removal later >> if it >> gets adopted). > > I beg ignorance on the I-D matter. > >> >> * What are the alternatives to this scheme based on ROHC? > > I'm not sure what you meant. You mean way to carry other type of header > compression (e.g IP Header Compression) over DVB? > >> >> * How similar to other ROHC profiles is this? Does it break or invent >> some >> new semantic or is it exactly parallel to some existing RFC? > > This draft doesn't create new ROHC profiles. It only defines ways to > carry ROHC compressed packet over DVB and negotiation protocol to setup > ROHC channel. > >> >> * Is there any effect on header compression at higher layers? E.g. If the >> spec interferes with using RTP/UDP/IP ROHC, then any efficiencies >> could be >> lost in the inability for the compression of heaver headers. Likewise, it >> makes sense to keep this ULE part isolated if possible so that authors of >> any other or future ROHC compression schemes aren't required to know >> about >> this spec while still allowing ULE implementers to benefit from ULE and >> higher layer ROHC together. > > No, it doesn't. > > Thank you for your interest. > >> >> Cheers, Rod. >> >> PS Good timing of the email Gorry - I was doing my 2-monthly stroll >> through >> IETF mails :) >> > > Regards, > Ang Way-Chuang >> >> >> On 2/17/08 10:26 PM, "ext Gorry Fairhurst" wrote: >> >>> I am forwarding this to the list, for comments and discussion. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> >>> Gorry Fairhurst >>> (as ipdvb Chair) >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB >>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:39:12 +0800 >>> From: Ang Way Chuang >>> To: Gorry Fairhurst >>> >>> Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, >>> We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains Malaysia >>> (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to seek for your >>> comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. Attached is the draft. >>> Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was copied >>> from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are still incomplete. >>> >>> I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I received >>> no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not working properly. >>> >>> >>> Thank you very much. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ang Way Chuang >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Tat-Chee Wan >>> >>> Chee-Hong Teh >>> >>> Way-Chuang >>> Ang >>> >>> Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight >>> Encapsulation (ULE) >>> and MPEG2-TS frames >>> >>> Status of This Memo >>> >>> This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet >>> community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. >>> Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. >>> Distribution of this memo is unlimited. >>> >>> Intellectual Property Right >>> >>> By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any >>> applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware >>> have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes >>> aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering >>> Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other >>> groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months >>> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any >>> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference >>> material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." >>> >>> The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at >>> http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html >>> >>> The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at >>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and >>> MPEG2-TS >>> frames. For completeness, ROHC channel parameters negotiation >>> protocol is >>> also >>> presented. >>> >>> Table of Contents >>> 1. Introduction >>> 2. Terminology >>> 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet >>> 3.1. ROHC over ULE >>> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >>> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >>> 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet >>> 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS >>> 4. Establishing ROHC Channel >>> 4.1. ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol >>> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement >>> 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation >>> 4.1.3. Request >>> 4.1.4. Reply >>> 4.1.4.1. Medium Information >>> 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium >>> 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium >>> 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement >>> 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown >>> 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown >>> 4.2. Interaction of ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol >>> 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels >>> 5. IANA Consideration >>> 6. References >>> 1. Introduction >>> >>> 2. Terminology >>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >>> document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. >>> >>> DVB >>> Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated >>> standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards >>> Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data >>> using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. >>> >>> MAC >>> Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol defined >>> by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 [DIX]). >>> >>> MPEG-2 >>> A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts >>> Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards >>> Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.222 >>> [ITU-H222]). >>> >>> PDU >>> Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, >>> IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. >>> >>> Receiver >>> Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and >>> performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the >>> network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the >>> link layer). >>> >>> Transmitter >>> Router or host that sends data. >>> >>> SNDU >>> SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 >>> Payload Unit. >>> >>> TS >>> Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, >>> Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow >>> multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the >>> output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for >>> transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast >>> applications such as DVB and ATSC. >>> >>> ULE Stream >>> An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated >>> PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a >>> stream_type in SI/PSI [ISO-MPEG2]. >>> >>> ROHC >>> Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers >>> of IP >>> packet as defined in [RFC 3095] >>> >>> ROHC channel >>> A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC >>> packets >>> from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC >>> feedback information on the behalf of another >>> compressor-decompressor >>> pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite >>> direction. >>> >>> ROHC profile >>> A ROHC profile is a compression protocol, which specifies how to >>> compress >>> specific header combinations. A ROHC profile may be tailored to >>> handle a >>> specific set of link characteristics, e.g., loss characteristics, >>> reordering between compression points, etc. ROHC profiles >>> provide the >>> details of the header compression and each compression profile is >>> associated with a unique ROHC profile identifier. >>> >>> MRRU Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in [RFC >>> 3095]. >>> >>> DVB >>> Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated >>> standards >>> published by the European Telecommunications Standards >>> Institute (ETSI) >>> for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO >>> MPEG-2 >>> Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. >>> >>> Context Identifier >>> [RFC 3095] provides a definition for context identifiers. >>> >>> MSB >>> Most significant bit. >>> >>> LSB >>> Least significant bit. >>> >>> ACK >>> Acknowledgement. >>> >>> NACK >>> Negative acknowledgement. >>> >>> CID >>> Context Identifier. >>> >>> 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet >>> >>> 3.1. ROHC over ULE >>> The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the >>> following >>> two formats: >>> >>> 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet >>> >>> +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ >>> |D| Length |Type=ROHC| Dest Address* | ROHC compressed packet | >>> CRC-32 | >>> >>> +-+--------+---------+---------------+------------------------+--------+ >>> Figure 1: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated using dedicated EtherType >>> >>> The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and >>> CRC-32 fields >>> are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields >>> requires >>> a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC >>> compressed packet in PDU. >>> >>> In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU >>> without >>> Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple >>> receivers >>> are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be >>> included >>> in SNDU. >>> >>> 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet >>> >>> >>> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- >>> >>> ----------+--------+ >>> |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC |EtherType=ROHC| ROHC >>> compressed packet | CRC-32 | >>> >>> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+--------------+-------------- >>> >>> ----------+--------+ >>> Figure 2: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated in SNDU bridged frame >>> >>> This packet format should be used when there are multiple >>> transmitters and >>> receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar >>> to Type >>> Field in section 3.1.1. >>> >>> 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS >>> This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms >>> of packet >>> size. The format of SNDU is the following format: >>> >>> +------+------------------------+--------+ >>> |Length| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | >>> +------+------------------------+--------+ >>> Figure 3: >>> >>> The meaning of each fields is specified below: >>> >>> Length: This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field >>> only. This >>> field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most >>> significant >>> bit. >>> If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field >>> is 1 octet >>> and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length >>> of this >>> field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. >>> >>> ROHC Compressed Packet: ROHC compressed packet as defined in >>> section 5.2 >>> of >>> [RFC 3095]. >>> >>> CRC-32: The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC >>> compressed >>> packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. >>> >>> Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding >>> mode. The >>> mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation >>> of ULE >>> packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID >>> dedicated >>> to a ROHC channel. >>> >>> 4. Establishing ROHC Channel >>> This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over >>> a DVB >>> link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This >>> requires >>> that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to >>> manually >>> configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is >>> small, >>> this approach is favourable. >>> >>> But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is >>> dynamic and is >>> not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we >>> presents a >>> negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section. >>> >>> 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) >>> The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor >>> site >>> and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated >>> unidirectional >>> DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the >>> sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the >>> two >>> sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is >>> possible to >>> extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation >>> [GSE] in the >>> future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over >>> asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. >>> Since new >>> EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to >>> asymmetrical link >>> via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC 3077] with little >>> modifications. >>> >>> The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such: >>> >>> +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ >>> |D=1| Length |Type=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | >>> +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ >>> Figure 4: Minimal format of RCPNP message >>> >>> >>> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- >>> >>> ----+ >>> |D=1| Length |Type=Ether| Dest MAC | Source MAC >>> |EtherType=ROHCNeg| Body | >>> CRC-32 | >>> >>> +---+--------+----------+----------+------------+-----------------+------+---- >>> >>> ----+ >>> Figure 5: RCPNP message encapsulated in bridged frame. >>> >>> Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number >>> for ROHC >>> Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this >>> protocol is >>> defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain >>> the type >>> of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and >>> Compressor >>> Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other >>> forms of >>> messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. >>> >>> The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such: >>> >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version | Operation | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 6: Basic format of RCPNP Body field. >>> >>> Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type >>> of message >>> contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on >>> operation >>> type. >>> >>> 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement >>> >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=0 | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> ~ Address (6 octets) ~ >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 7: Format of Compressor Advertisement message. >>> >>> Compressor site should send this message periodically to advertise >>> the >>> availability of compressor. Care should be taken as not to send >>> too many >>> advertisements. The decompressor site will use the value specified >>> in the >>> Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and >>> should >>> be >>> ignored. >>> >>> 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation >>> >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=1 | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 8: Format of Compressor Solicitation message. >>> >>> Instead of waiting for compressor site to advertise itself, >>> decompressor >>> site >>> may opt to solicit for compressor(s) by sending compressor site >>> solicitation >>> message. Upon receiving solicitation, compressor site should send an >>> advertisement. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor >>> site >>> should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't >>> receive >>> any advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link. >>> >>> 4.1.3. Request >>> >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=2 | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Maximum CID + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Num of profiles + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID 1 + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID 2 + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID N + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 9: Format of Request message. >>> >>> This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site. The >>> meaning >>> of each fields in the message are described below: >>> >>> Maximum CID: Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. >>> >>> MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by >>> decompressor. Value >>> of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for >>> segmentation of >>> ROHC >>> compressed packet. >>> >>> Number of profiles: Number of profiles supported by decompressor. >>> >>> Profile IDs: ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile >>> ID occupy 2 octets. >>> >>> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >>> >>> 4.1.4. Reply >>> >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=3 | X | >>> +===============================================+ >>> | | >>> + Maximum CID + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Num of profiles | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID 1 + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID 2 + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | | >>> + Profile ID N + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 10: Format of Reply message. >>> >>> This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in >>> response to >>> request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each >>> fields in >>> the >>> message are described below: >>> >>> Maximum CID: Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of >>> this field >>> should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. >>> Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID >>> that is >>> higher than the initial negotiated value. >>> >>> MRRU: Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. >>> Likewise, >>> decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU >>> than >>> what >>> it requested. >>> >>> Number of profile IDs: Note that this field is 1 octet instead of >>> 2 because >>> there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. >>> Decompressor >>> site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can >>> support. >>> Profile IDs: Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be >>> used for >>> the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK >>> if it >>> receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. >>> >>> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >>> >>> 4.1.4.1. Medium Information >>> The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 >>> indicates the >>> presence of medium information. >>> >>> +===============================================+ >>> >>> Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed >>> packets >>> to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely >>> MPEG2-TS and >>> ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is >>> described >>> in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media >>> may be >>> supported in the future and the support for these media will >>> specified in >>> other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type >>> should send >>> a NACK. >>> >>> 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG2-TS Medium >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Medium=0 | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+ PID + >>> | | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 11: Medium information for ROHC over MPEG2-TS. >>> >>> PID: Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC >>> compressed >>> packet. >>> >>> 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Medium=1 | ULE Type | Reserved | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 12: Medium information for ROHC over ULE. >>> >>> ULE Type: >>> >>> 0: No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should >>> only be >>> used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one >>> receiver and >>> one transmitter over DVB link. >>> >>> 1: Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that >>> carry ROHC >>> compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE >>> header >>> will >>> be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter >>> and many >>> receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. >>> >>> 2: ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. >>> This option >>> is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB >>> link. >>> >>> 3: Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently >>> discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a >>> timeout >>> occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation >>> afresh by >>> sending a Request message. >>> >>> Reserved field is not used and should be ignored. >>> >>> 4.1.5. Acknowledgement >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=4 | Ack | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 13: Format of Acknowledgement message. >>> >>> Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative >>> acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit >>> is set, >>> then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative >>> acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK >>> within a >>> reasonable interval, it should discard any information of >>> negotiated ROHC >>> channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to >>> decompressor site >>> when >>> compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message. >>> >>> 4.1.6 Compressor Shutdown >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=5 | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 14: Format of Compressor Shutdown message. >>> >>> This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the >>> decompressor site >>> that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this >>> message, decompressor should release all resources that are being >>> held. >>> >>> Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site >>> before >>> freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a >>> reasonable >>> interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number >>> of times >>> before freeing its resource. >>> >>> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >>> >>> 4.1.7 Decompressor Shutdown >>> MSB LSB >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> | Version=0 | Operation=6 | X | >>> +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ >>> Figure 15: Format of Decompressor Shutdown message. >>> >>> This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the >>> compressor >>> that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving >>> this >>> message, compressor should release all resources that are being >>> held and >>> stop >>> sending compressed IP packets. >>> >>> Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site >>> before >>> freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a >>> reasonable >>> interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number >>> of times >>> before freeing its resource. >>> >>> X-bit is unused and should be ignored. >>> >>> 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP >>> The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between >>> compressor >>> site >>> and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters. >>> >>> Compressor Site Decompressor >>> Site >>> |<------------ Solicit (optional) ----------------| >>> | | >>> |------------------- Advertise ------------------>| >>> | | >>> |<------------------- Request --------------------| >>> | | >>> |--------------------- Reply -------------------->| >>> | | Create >>> instance >>> | | of >>> decompressor >>> Create |<-------------------- ACK -----------------------| >>> compressor | | >>> | | >>> | ==== (Compression can begin at this point) === | >>> | | >>> | | >>> Destroy |<------------ Decompressor Shutdown -------------| >>> compressor | | >>> |--------------------- ACK ---------------------->| Destroy >>> | | >>> decompressor >>> >>> Figure 15: Packets flow of RCPNP >>> >>> >>> 4.3 Bidirectional ROHC Channels >>> While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use >>> of ROHC >>> bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP >>> doesn't >>> concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC >>> channels. >>> Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support >>> bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as >>> straightforward >>> as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels. >>> >>> 5. IANA Consideration >>> Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the >>> other is >>> to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet. >>> >>> 6. References >>> [RFC 3095] Bormann, C. et al, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): >>> Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", >>> RFC 3095, 2001 >>> >>> [RFC 4326] Fairhurst, G. and Collini-Nocker, B., "Unidirectional >>> Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for Transmission of IP >>> Datagrams >>> over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS)", RFC 4326, 2005 >>> >>> [GSE] Digital Video Broadcasting, "Generic Stream >>> Encapsulation >>> (GSE) >>> Protocol", DVB Document A116, 2007 >>> >>> [RFC 3077] Duros, E. et al, "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for >>> Unidirectional Links", RFC 3077, 2001 >>> >>> [ISO-MPEG2] IS 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic coding of >>> moving >>> pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: >>> Systems", >>> International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000. >>> >>> >>> Authors’ Addresses >>> Tat-Chee Wan >>> School of Computer Sciences, >>> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >>> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >>> Email: tcwan@cs.usm.my >>> Web: http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan >>> >>> Chee-Hong Teh >>> School of Computer Sciences, >>> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >>> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >>> Email: chteh@nav6.org >>> >>> Way-Chuang Ang >>> School of Computer Sciences, >>> Universiti Sains Malaysia, >>> 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia. >>> Email: wcang@nav6.org >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Fri Feb 22 02:28:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725653A6C79 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:28:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.386, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_GET_MEDS=2.75, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R+wgUSUSQhEK for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:28:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF2C3A6BC0 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1M9ptBh019170 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:51:55 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1M9ptFB019169 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:51:55 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from nav6.org (mail.nrg.cs.usm.my [219.93.2.104] (may be forged)) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1M9pMsw019140 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:51:24 GMT Received: from [10.207.160.229] (unknown [10.207.160.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nav6.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEA31D60150; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:46:28 +0800 (MYT) Message-ID: <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:51:11 +0800 From: Ang Way Chuang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk CC: TC Wan Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB References: <47B82AF0.7080605@nav6.org> <47B8982A.2020007@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B8EE6F.4050005@nav6.org> <47B94AFB.5060909@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B95983.4070600@nav6.org> <47B95D6D.3020500@erg.abdn.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <47B95D6D.3020500@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070903010508080900090301" X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070903010508080900090301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Gorry, As suggested, the draft has been converted to xml format. Attached are the update xml and txt files. I've included the change suggested by Rod Walsh in the draft. Some entries in the Terminologies section are copied from other RFCs, I hope that is bad practice for a candidate I-D. Certainly, this draft needs more polishing. I take the liberty to send it now, so that someone in this mailing list can help iron out some issues. English is not my native tongue, please forgive me for my poor command of the language. Thank you in advance. Regards, Ang Way Chuang Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > Thanks for your contribution - let's still diuscuss the technical > proposal and what should be done in this space using the ipdvb list - > It's great to have some input for discussion of this. > > In parallel, I'd encourage you to look at the tools and let me know your > thoughts and progress! > > Best wishes, > > Gorry > > Ang Way Chuang wrote: >> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>> Sorry for the brief inlined reply. >>>> >>>> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You should be able to post it yourself, I'll happily post it to the >>>>> list for you to see if there is feedback. Can you tell us what you >>>>> plan to do next? >>>> >>>> I think I know why the previous post failed. I am subscribed to the >>>> mailing list via another email address (wcang@nrg.cs.usm.my) which >>>> is an alias to the one I'm using. >>>> >>> Sounds likely. >>> >>>>> >>>>> If you were intending to submit a draft for consideration by the >>>>> IETF, then you need to format it according to the guidelines shown at: >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html >>>> >>>> Aye, we want to submit this draft for consideration by the IETF. >>>> >>> The first thing to decide is what editor you wish to use - some >>> people use a text editor and nroff (these are in the minority), many >>> still use a microsoft word template (the main way until a few years >>> ago) and the rest use a XML-editor (now probably the best way). You >>> could of course just try to write a text file, but as you receive >>> comments and find that you have co-editors helping with the draft, >>> this is likely to become too difficult to do. >>> >>> See: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html >>> http://tools.ietf.org//inventory/author-tools >>> >>> A good start would be to get a XML or DOC file in the format you >>> intend to use and add your text to this. >>> >>> The final Internet-Draft must conform to the fixed style (i.e. all >>> sections well-formed: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html >>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt >>> >>> This means in practice that you need to upload the document to the >>> checking tool at (this will tell you what is right and what is wrong) >>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ >> >> Aye, thanks for the pointer. >> >>> >>> You may well be aware that there is a deadline prior to an IETF >>> meeting, this is enforce today (which means you can not submit a new >>> document after 5pm US time today). You could try for this, but if >>> this is your first draft, then this may well be too little time (it's >>> easier if you've done this before). >> >> I see. I wasn't aware of that. This is our first draft, so I think it >> is wiser to discuss first. >> >>> >>> In the mean-time it seems some people have started reading your >>> inputs, so you could discuss this on the list and see if people agree. >>> >>> Gorry >>> >>> P.S. There is no formal IPDVB meeting at this IETF, or ROHC WG meeting, >>> but if you were attending then please do let me know and we can talk. >>> >>>>> >>>>> You can then upload the draft to the I-D repository using: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi >>>>> >>>>> If you want help formatting and submitting this, please do let us >>>>> know. >>>> >>>> Yes, we appreciate any form of help. Please help us with formatting >>>> and submission. Thank you very much. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Gorry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>>>> Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, >>>>>> We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains >>>>>> Malaysia (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to >>>>>> seek for your comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. >>>>>> Attached is the draft. >>>>>> Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was >>>>>> copied from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are still >>>>>> incomplete. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I >>>>>> received no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not >>>>>> working properly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ang Way Chuang >>>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Gorry >>> >>> >> >> > > --------------070903010508080900090301 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-rohc-dvb.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-rohc-dvb.txt" Network Working Group Tat-Chee. Wan Internet-Draft Way-Chuang. Ang Intended status: Standards Track Chee Hong. Teh Expires: August 25, 2008 Universiti Sains Malaysia February 22, 2008 Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) frames draft-rohc-dvb-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Abstract This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS frames. For completeness, ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) is also presented. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. ROHC over ULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Establishing ROHC Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) . . . 10 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.3. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.4. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1.4.1. Medium Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG-2 TS Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement . . . . . . . 18 4.1.6. Compressor Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1.7. Decompressor Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Bidirectional ROHC Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26 Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 1. Introduction This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS frames. For completeness, ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) is also presented. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 2. Terminologies The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. DVB Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard [ISO-MPEG2]. MAC Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 [DIX]). MPEG-2 A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.222 [ITU-H222]). PDU Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. Receiver Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the link layer). Transmitter Router or host that sends data. SNDU SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 Payload Unit. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 TS Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast applications such as DVB and ATSC. ULE stream An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a stream_type in SI/PSI [ISO-MPEG2]. ROHC Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers of IP packet as defined in [RFC3095]. ROHC channel A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. ROHC profile A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. MRRU Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in [RFC3095]. Context Identifier [RFC3095] provides a definition for context identifiers. MSB Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Most significant bit. LSB Least significant bit. ACK Acknowledgement. NACk Negative acknowledgement. CID Contect Identifier. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 3. Packet Format of ROHC Packet This section briefly describes the notation used in all diagrams. ":" in a diagram indicates that the part is optional. Likewise, "~" in a diagram indicates the number of octets by the part is not presented in a precise manner. This situation appears when a field or part spans multiple or variable number of bytes. 3.1. ROHC over ULE The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the following two formats: 3.1.1. Dedicated EtherType Fields for ROHC Compressed Packet MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | D | | +-----+ Length + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Type=ROHC + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ : : ~ Dest Address* (6 octets) ~ : : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ ROHC compressed packet (variable length) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ CRC-32 (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 1: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated using dedicated EtherType The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and CRC-32 fields are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields requires a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet in PDU. In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 without Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple receivers are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be included in SNDU. 3.1.2. ROHC Compressed Packet as Payload of Ethernet Packet MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | D=1 | | +-----+ Length + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Type=Ether + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Dest MAC (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Source MAC (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + EtherType=ROHC + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ ROHC compressed packet (varible length) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ CRC-32 (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 2: ROHC compressed packet encapsulated in SNDU bridged frame This packet format should be used when there are multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar to Type Field in section 3.1.1. 3.2. ROHC over MPEG2-TS This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms of packet size. The format of SNDU is the following format: Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 +------+------------------------+--------+ |Length| ROHC compressed packet | CRC-32 | +------+------------------------+--------+ Figure 3: ROHC compressed packet compressed encapsulated direct within MPEG2-TS frames' payload The meaning of each fields is specified below: Length This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field only. This field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most significant bit. If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field is 1 octet and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length of this field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. ROHC Compressed Packet ROHC compressed packet as defined in section 5.2 of [RFC3095]. CRC-32 The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC compressed packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding mode. The mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation of ULE packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID dedicated to a ROHC channel. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 4. Establishing ROHC Channel This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over a DVB link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This requires that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to manually configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is small, this approach is favourable. But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is dynamic and is not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we presents a negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section. 4.1. ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is possible to extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation [GSE] in the future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. Since new EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC3077] with little modifications. The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such: +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ |D=1| Length |Type=ROHCNeg| Body | CRC-32 | +---+--------+------------+----------+--------+ Figure 4: Minimal format of RCPNP message Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | D=1 | | +-----+ Length + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Type=Ether + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Dest MAC (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Source MAC (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + EtherType=ROHCNeg + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Body (varible length) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ CRC-32 (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 5: RCPNP message encapsulated in bridged frame Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number for ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this protocol is defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain the type of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and Compressor Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other forms of messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such: Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version | Operation | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 6: Basic format of RCPNP Body field Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type of message contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on operation type. 4.1.1. Compressor Advertisement MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=0 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ Address (6 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 7: Format of Compressor Advertisement message This message is used by the compressor site to advertise the availability of ROHC Compressor. Out of concern for bandwidth and energy consumption, compressor site should limit the broadcast of this message for a few times when it first join the network. This message should also be broadcasted when a Compressor Solicitation message is received. The decompressor site will use the value specified in the Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.2. Compressor Solicitation MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=1 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 8: Format of Compressor Solicitation message This message is broadcasted by decompressor to solicit for compressor. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor site should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 receive any Compressor Advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link. 4.1.3. Request MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=2 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Maximum CID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Number of Media | | ~-----+-----+-----+ Medium Types ~ : : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Num of profiles + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 1 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ : : + Profile ID 2 + : : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ : : + Profile ID N + :| : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 9: Format of Request message This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site when it wishes to establish a ROHC channel. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum CID Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. MRRU Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by decompressor. Value of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for segmentation of ROHC compressed packet. Number of Media The number of medium types carried in Medium Types field. Medium Types This field consists of all supported medium types by the decompressor. Each medium type consists of 3 bits and corresponds to Medium field described in Medium Information (Section 4.1.4.1) section. The number of bits used by Medium Types and Number of Media fields must be expanded to multiple of 8 if actual number of required bits is not multiple of 8. The unused bits for such case should be ignored by Compressor site. Number of profiles Number of profiles supported by decompressor. Profile IDs ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile ID occupy 2 octets. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 4.1.4. Reply MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=3 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Maximum CID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | ~ MRRU (4 octets) ~ | | +===============================================+ | Num of profiles | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | + Profile ID 1 + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ : : + Profile ID 2 + : : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ : : + Profile ID N + : : +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 10: Format of Reply message This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in response to request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum CID Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of this field should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID that is higher than the initial negotiated value. MRRU Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. Likewise, decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU than what it requested. Number of profile IDs Note that this field is 1 octet instead of 2 because there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can support. Profile IDs Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be used for the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.4.1. Medium Information The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 indicates the presence of medium information. +===============================================+ Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed packets to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely MPEG2-TS and ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is described in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media may be supported in the future and the support for these media will specified in other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type should send a NACK. When an unrecognized medium type is received, decompressor site should send an NACK message to compressor. 4.1.4.1.1. MPEG-2 TS Medium MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Medium=0 | | +-----+-----+-----+ PID + | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 12: Medium information for ROHC over MPEG2-TS Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 PID Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC compressed packet. 4.1.4.1.2. ULE Medium MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Medium=1 | ULE Type | Reserved | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 13: Medium information for ROHC over ULE ULE Type: 0 No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should only be used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one receiver and one transmitter over DVB link. 1 Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that carry ROHC compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE header will be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter and many receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. 2 ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. This option is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. 3 Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a timeout occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation afresh by sending a Request message. Reserved field is not used and should be ignored. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 4.1.5. Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=4 | Ack | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 14: Format of Acknowledgement message Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit is set, then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK within a reasonable interval, it should discard any information of negotiated ROHC channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to decompressor site when compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message. 4.1.6. Compressor Shutdown MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=5 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 15: Format of Compressor Shutdown message This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the decompressor site that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, decompressor should release all resources that are being held. Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.1.7. Decompressor Shutdown Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 MSB LSB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Version=0 | Operation=6 | X | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Figure 16: Format of Decompressor Shutdown message This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the compressor that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, compressor should release all resources that are being held and stop sending compressed IP packets. Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. 4.2. Interaction of RCPNP The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between compressor site and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters. Compressor Site Decompressor Site |<---------------- Solicit ---------------| | | |-------------- Advertise --------------->| | | |<-------------- Request -----------------| | | |---------------- Reply ----------------->| | | Create instance | | of decompressor Create |<---------------- ACK -------------------| compressor | | | | |= (Compression can begin at this point) =| | | | | Destroy |<------- Decompressor Shutdown ----------| compressor | | |----------------- ACK --- -------------->| Destroy | | decompressor Figure 17: Packets flow of RCPNP Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 5. Bidirectional ROHC Channels While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use of ROHC bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP doesn't concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC channels. Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as straightforward as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 6. IANA Consideration Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the other is to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 7. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Rod Walsh (Nokia) for his valuable input and feedback. We also want to extend our gratitude to Dr. Gorry Fairhurst for his guidance. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 8. Security Considerations - None - Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 9. Normative References [DIX] Digital Equipment Corp, Intel Corp, Xerox Corp, "Ethernet Local Area Network Specification Version 2.0", November 1982. [GSE] Digital Video Broadcasting, ""Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) Protocol", DVB Document A116, 2007. [IEEE-802.3] IEEE 802.3, "Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer specifications", IEEE Computer Society, (also ISO/ IEC 8802-3), 2000. [ISO-MPEG2] ISO 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: Systems", International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000. [ITU-H222] H.222.0, "Information technology - Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems, International Telecommunication Union, (ITU-T)", 1995. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3077] Duros, E., "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional Links", RFC 3077, 2001. [RFC3095] Borman, C., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, 2001. Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Authors' Addresses Tat-Chee Wan Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia Phone: +6 04 653 4633 Email: tcwan@nav6.org URI: http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan Way-Chuang Ang Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia Email: wcang@nav6.org Chee-Hong Teh Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia Email: chteh@nav6.org Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ROHC over ULE and MPEG-2 TS frames February 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Wan, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 26] --------------070903010508080900090301 Content-Type: text/xml; name="draft-rohc-dvb.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-rohc-dvb.xml" ]> Robust Header Compression over Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) frames Universiti Sains Malaysia
School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia +6 04 653 4633 tcwan@nav6.org http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan
Universiti Sains Malaysia
School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia wcang@nav6.org
Universiti Sains Malaysia
School of Computer Science Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia chteh@nav6.org
This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS frames. For completeness, ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) is also presented.
This paper introduces approach to carry ROHC packets over ULE and MPEG2-TS frames. For completeness, ROHC Channel Parameters Negotiation Protocol (RCPNP) is also presented.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in . Digital Video Broadcast. A framework and set of associated standards published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and data using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard . Medium Access Control . A link-layer protocol defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2 ). A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and standardized by the International Standards Organisation (ISO/IEC 13818-1) , and ITU-T (in H.222 ). Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames, IPv4 or IPv6 datagrams, and other network packets. Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex and performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the link layer). Router or host that sends data. SubNetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2 Payload Unit. Transport stream (TS) is a format specified in MPEG-2 Part 1, Systems (ISO/IEC standard 13818-1). Its design goal is to allow multiplexing of digital video and audio and to synchronize the output. Transport stream offers features for error correction for transportation over unreliable media, and is used in broadcast applications such as DVB and ATSC. An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE encapsulated PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a stream_type in SI/PSI . Robust Header Compression. A framework of compression headers of IP packet as defined in . A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. A logical unidirectional point-to-point channel carrying ROHC packets from one compressor to one decompressor, optionally carrying ROHC feedback information on the behalf of another compressor-decompressor pair operating on a separate ROHC channel in the opposite direction. Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit as defined in . provides a definition for context identifiers. Most significant bit. Least significant bit. Acknowledgement. Negative acknowledgement. Contect Identifier.
This section briefly describes the notation used in all diagrams. ":" in a diagram indicates that the part is optional. Likewise, "~" in a diagram indicates the number of octets by the part is not presented in a precise manner. This situation appears when a field or part spans multiple or variable number of bytes.
The packet format for ROHC packet encapsulated can be in one the following two formats:
The semantics of D-bit, Length, Type, Destination Address and CRC-32 fields are defined in section 4 of [RFC 4326]. However, the Type fields requires a new IANA assigned EtherType value to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet in PDU. In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU without Destination Address Field (D bit marked). However, when multiple receivers are listening to the same transmitter, destination address must be included in SNDU.
This packet format should be used when there are multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. The value of EtherType field is similar to Type Field in section 3.1.1.
This encapsulation format is the smallest packet format in terms of packet size. The format of SNDU is the following format:
The meaning of each fields is specified below: This field indicates the ROHC compressed packet field only. This field can be either 1 or 2 octets depending on the the most significant bit. If the most significant bit is cleared, the length of this field is 1 octet and may represents values from 0 until 127. Otherwise, the length of this field is 2 octets and may represents values from 128 until 61566. ROHC compressed packet as defined in section 5.2 of . The 32-bit CRC is calculated over Length filed and ROHC compressed packet. The polynomial used to calculate the CRC is 0x104C11DB7. Like ULE, ROHC over MPEG2-TS also supports packing and padding mode. The mechanism of encapsulating this SNDU is similar to encapsulation of ULE packet within MPEG2-TS. This approach requires that separate PID dedicated to a ROHC channel.
This standard presents two approaches to setup a ROHC channel over a DVB link. The first approach is to setup ROHC channel manually. This requires that the operators at the every transmitters and receivers to manually configure the ROHC channel parameters. When the size of network is small, this approach is favourable. But the former approach becomes nonviable if the network is dynamic and is not scalable as the size of the network grows. Henceforth, we presents a negotiation protocol to create ROHC channel in the next section.
The approach presented in this section can only work if compressor site and decompressor site are connected through two dedicated unidirectional DVB links, with a unidirectional link originating from each of the sites, configured to form a bidirectional network link between the two sites. This protocol works through ULE packets only. It is possible to extend this protocol to work over Generic Stream Encapsulation in the future. While it is possible to extend this protocol to work over asymmetrical link, this draft doesn't try to address this issue. Since new EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism with little modifications. The basic format of ULE SNDU packet is as such:
Type field requires a new separate IANA assigned EtherType number for ROHC Channel Negotiation Protocol. The types of message in this protocol is defined in the Body field. The following subsections will explain the type of messages for this protocol. Compressor Advertisement and Compressor Solicitation uses packet format depicted in Figure 4. While other forms of messages uses packet format depicted in Figure 5. The basic format for these messages is depicted is as such:
Currently, version number is 0. Operation field defines the type of message contained in the Body field. The content of X-bit depends on operation type.
This message is used by the compressor site to advertise the availability of ROHC Compressor. Out of concern for bandwidth and energy consumption, compressor site should limit the broadcast of this message for a few times when it first join the network. This message should also be broadcasted when a Compressor Solicitation message is received. The decompressor site will use the value specified in the Address field when addressing compressor site. X-bit is unused and should be ignored.
This message is broadcasted by decompressor to solicit for compressor. X-bit is unused and should be ignored. Decompressor site should rate-limit the frequency of solicitation if it is doesn't receive any Compressor Advertisement to avoid flooding DVB link.
This message is sent by decompressor site to compressor site when it wishes to establish a ROHC channel. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum Context Identifier tolerated by decompressor. Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by decompressor. Value of 0 indicates the negotiated channel doesn't allow for segmentation of ROHC compressed packet. The number of medium types carried in Medium Types field. This field consists of all supported medium types by the decompressor. Each medium type consists of 3 bits and corresponds to Medium field described in Medium Information section. The number of bits used by Medium Types and Number of Media fields must be expanded to multiple of 8 if actual number of required bits is not multiple of 8. The unused bits for such case should be ignored by Compressor site. Number of profiles supported by decompressor. ROHC Profile IDs supported by decompressor. Each profile ID occupy 2 octets. X-bit is unused and should be ignored.
This message is sent by compressor site to decompressor site in response to request message sent by decompressor site. The meaning of each fields in the message are described below: Maximum CID tolerated by compressor. This value of this field should be less than or equal to its counterpart in request message. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives Maximum CID that is higher than the initial negotiated value. Maximum Reconstructed Reception Unit tolerated by compressor. Likewise, decompressor site should send a NACK if it is receives higher MRRU than what it requested. Note that this field is 1 octet instead of 2 because there can be only 256 active profiles at any given ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives more profile IDs than it can support. Profile Identifiers of the ROHC profiles that will be used for the negotiated ROHC channel. Decompressor site should send a NACK if it receives any profile ID that it doesn't support. X-bit is unused and should be ignored.
The following notation depicted in the previous figure 10 indicates the presence of medium information.
Medium information conveys how compressor is to send ROHC compressed packets to decompressor. Currently only 2 media are supported, namely MPEG2-TS and ULE. The details of packet format for ROHC over MPEG2-TS/ULE is described in section 3. Medium type is conveyed by Medium field. Other media may be supported in the future and the support for these media will specified in other documents. Decompressor receiving unsupported medium type should send a NACK. When an unrecognized medium type is received, decompressor site should send an NACK message to compressor.
Packet Identifier of MPEG2-TS frames that will carry ROHC compressed packet.
ULE Type: No MAC address will be sent in ULE packets. This option should only be used if the compressor site is certain that there is only one receiver and one transmitter over DVB link. Only destination MAC address will be sent in ULE packets that carry ROHC compressed packet. This means that Destination Absent bit in ULE header will be cleared. This option is used only if there is one transmitter and many receivers listening to that transmitter via DVB link. ROHC packets will be encapsulated in Ethernet bridged frame. This option is used when there multiple transmitters and receivers over a DVB link. Not used. Receiver should treat it as corrupted packet, silently discard the message and wait for a valid Reply message or until a timeout occur at which the decompressor site will start the negotiation afresh by sending a Request message. Reserved field is not used and should be ignored.
Decompressor site should send either an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement if it receives a valid Reply message. If Ack bit is set, then the message is an acknowledgement. Otherwise, it is a negative acknowledgement. If compressor site doesn't receive ACK nor NACK within a reasonable interval, it should discard any information of negotiated ROHC channel parameters. An acknowledgement must be sent to decompressor site when compressor site receives Decompressor Shutdown message.
This message is sent by the compressor site to notify the decompressor site that it is about to stop compressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, decompressor should release all resources that are being held. Compressor must wait for an acknowledgement from decompressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored.
This message is sent by the decompressor site to notify the compressor that it is about to stop decompressing IP packets. Upon receiving this message, compressor should release all resources that are being held and stop sending compressed IP packets. Decompressor must wait for an acknowledgement from compressor site before freeing its resource. If it doesn't an acknowledgement within a reasonable interval, it should keep sending a shutdown message for a number of times before freeing its resource. X-bit is unused and should be ignored.
The following diagram depicts a possible interaction between compressor site and decompressor site in negotiating ROHC channel parameters.
| | | |<-------------- Request -----------------| | | |---------------- Reply ----------------->| | | Create instance | | of decompressor Create |<---------------- ACK -------------------| compressor | | | | |= (Compression can begin at this point) =| | | | | Destroy |<------- Decompressor Shutdown ----------| compressor | | |----------------- ACK --- -------------->| Destroy | | decompressor ]]>
While establishing bidirectional ROHC channels allows for the use of ROHC bidirectional optimistic mode and bidirectional reliable mode, RCPNP doesn't concern itself with the establishment of bidirectional ROHC channels. Therefore, it is up to implementers of this protocol to support bidirectional ROHC channels. The implementation should be as straightforward as mapping correct pair of ROHC channels.
Two EtherTypes should be assigned. One of it is for RCPNP and the other is to indicate the presence of ROHC compressed packet.
We would like to thank Rod Walsh (Nokia) for his valuable input and feedback. We also want to extend our gratitude to Dr. Gorry Fairhurst for his guidance.
- None -
&rfc2119; Information technology -- Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information -- Part 1: Systems ISO 13818-1
Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer specifications IEEE 802.3
Ethernet Local Area Network Specification Version 2.0 Digital Equipment Corp, Intel Corp, Xerox Corp
Information technology - Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems, International Telecommunication Union, (ITU-T) H.222.0
RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed
"Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) Protocol Digital Video Broadcasting
A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional Links
--------------070903010508080900090301-- From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sat Feb 23 10:19:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535793A69AD for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:19:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkhoKA9rSgLa for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:19:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F6B3A6881 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:19:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NHnthm006975 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:49:56 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1NHntEF006974 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:49:55 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Silver.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NHnJId006960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:49:20 GMT Message-ID: <47C05CA1.8060907@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:49:21 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst Organization: School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Scotland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk CC: TC Wan Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB References: <47B82AF0.7080605@nav6.org> <47B8982A.2020007@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B8EE6F.4050005@nav6.org> <47B94AFB.5060909@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B95983.4070600@nav6.org> <47B95D6D.3020500@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> In-Reply-To: <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk According to naming conventions, the first version that is officially published by the IETF should be named something like: draft-wan-ipdvb-rohc-00.txt (i.e. draft- followed by first author, followed by WG followed by title) The format of the draft would have passed the ID-Submission process and have been published except for the pre-IETF meeting cut-off. I think this should therefore be uploaded as soon as the archives re-open - but it would be good to get feedback from people on the current text. I will also send some comments on the draft soon, Best wishes, Gorry Ang Way Chuang wrote: > Hi Gorry, > As suggested, the draft has been converted to xml format. Attached > are the update xml and txt files. I've included the change suggested by > Rod Walsh in the draft. Some entries in the Terminologies section are > copied from other RFCs, I hope that is bad practice for a candidate I-D. > Certainly, this draft needs more polishing. I take the liberty to send > it now, so that someone in this mailing list can help iron out some > issues. English is not my native tongue, please forgive me for my poor > command of the language. > > Thank you in advance. > > Regards, > Ang Way Chuang > > Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >> >> Thanks for your contribution - let's still diuscuss the technical >> proposal and what should be done in this space using the ipdvb list - >> It's great to have some input for discussion of this. >> >> In parallel, I'd encourage you to look at the tools and let me know >> your thoughts and progress! >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Gorry >> >> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>>> Sorry for the brief inlined reply. >>>>> >>>>> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You should be able to post it yourself, I'll happily post it to >>>>>> the list for you to see if there is feedback. Can you tell us what >>>>>> you plan to do next? >>>>> >>>>> I think I know why the previous post failed. I am subscribed to the >>>>> mailing list via another email address (wcang@nrg.cs.usm.my) which >>>>> is an alias to the one I'm using. >>>>> >>>> Sounds likely. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you were intending to submit a draft for consideration by the >>>>>> IETF, then you need to format it according to the guidelines shown >>>>>> at: >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html >>>>> >>>>> Aye, we want to submit this draft for consideration by the IETF. >>>>> >>>> The first thing to decide is what editor you wish to use - some >>>> people use a text editor and nroff (these are in the minority), many >>>> still use a microsoft word template (the main way until a few years >>>> ago) and the rest use a XML-editor (now probably the best way). You >>>> could of course just try to write a text file, but as you receive >>>> comments and find that you have co-editors helping with the draft, >>>> this is likely to become too difficult to do. >>>> >>>> See: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html >>>> http://tools.ietf.org//inventory/author-tools >>>> >>>> A good start would be to get a XML or DOC file in the format you >>>> intend to use and add your text to this. >>>> >>>> The final Internet-Draft must conform to the fixed style (i.e. all >>>> sections well-formed: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html >>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt >>>> >>>> This means in practice that you need to upload the document to the >>>> checking tool at (this will tell you what is right and what is wrong) >>>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ >>> >>> Aye, thanks for the pointer. >>> >>>> >>>> You may well be aware that there is a deadline prior to an IETF >>>> meeting, this is enforce today (which means you can not submit a new >>>> document after 5pm US time today). You could try for this, but if >>>> this is your first draft, then this may well be too little time >>>> (it's easier if you've done this before). >>> >>> I see. I wasn't aware of that. This is our first draft, so I think it >>> is wiser to discuss first. >>> >>>> >>>> In the mean-time it seems some people have started reading your >>>> inputs, so you could discuss this on the list and see if people agree. >>>> >>>> Gorry >>>> >>>> P.S. There is no formal IPDVB meeting at this IETF, or ROHC WG meeting, >>>> but if you were attending then please do let me know and we can talk. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You can then upload the draft to the I-D repository using: >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want help formatting and submitting this, please do let us >>>>>> know. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we appreciate any form of help. Please help us with formatting >>>>> and submission. Thank you very much. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gorry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, >>>>>>> We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains >>>>>>> Malaysia (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to >>>>>>> seek for your comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. >>>>>>> Attached is the draft. >>>>>>> Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was >>>>>>> copied from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are >>>>>>> still incomplete. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I >>>>>>> received no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not >>>>>>> working properly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ang Way Chuang >>>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Gorry >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sat Feb 23 10:57:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC1F3A6AFC for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B0UKHdIDK7Hu for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55AC13A6986 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NIUXLT007875 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:30:33 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1NIUXPT007874 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:30:33 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Silver.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NIUKJo007860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:30:21 GMT Message-ID: <47C0663E.20100@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:30:22 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst Organization: School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Scotland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: Re: Draft for ROHC over DVB - comments on your text. References: <47B82AF0.7080605@nav6.org> <47B8982A.2020007@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B8EE6F.4050005@nav6.org> <47B94AFB.5060909@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B95983.4070600@nav6.org> <47B95D6D.3020500@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> In-Reply-To: <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk I have a few questions about the draft from the ULE perspective, please see below. Gorry --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) ULE Type There are two ways the Type field could be used, and I am not clear which you are proposing. a) You could use a ULE Mandatory Extension Header. The value for this could be allocated by the IETF, if this were approved as an IETF RFC and that would certainly be one way to proceed that would allow you to embed ROHC functionality in the ULE/GSE Gateway and Receivers. b) You could apply to the IEEE for an EtherType value from the IEEE Registry that would be applicable to all IEEE technologies (WiFi, wired-ethernet, etc) and which naturally could be used with ULE/GSE also, although you would still need to define how this was implemented, and how this interacted with ULE if you wanted to embed the compression and decompression in the ULE end-points rather than in the connected end host Ethernet drivers. (it's a little wrong to speak of a "IANA assigned EtherType number" - since this mixes the two possibilities). Comments and questions relating to this: --- In section 3.1.2: I don't understand the header format. The base-header has the type Ethernet - this means the encapsulated PDU must be an Ethernet Frame (as per RFC4326). A receiver should attempt to forward the PDU to the bridged LAN interface. If you wanted a compressed ROHC payload in bridged mode, you'd probably need to define a new ULE-Type that denotes you are carrying a bridged ROHC PDU that needs to be decompressed prior to Receiver bridge processing - you probably also need to describe how this would work. --- In Section 4.1: "Since new EtherType is allocated, this protocol can be extended to asymmetrical link via Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism [RFC3077]" - UDLR uses IEEE EtherTypes, whereas ULE uses these, but includes its own extension formats. So this is only so, if you request an IEEE-allocated Ethertype, rather than a ULE-Type value from the IANA extensions registry. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) In Section 3.1.1: "In the absence of multiple receivers, a transmitter can send an SNDU"... I think this is only partially true, it may be safer to refer this to RFC4326, since this is also dependent on the way in which the ULE Stream is used. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) In section 3.2 (ROHC over MPEG2-TS): - This format isn't clear to me, it seems you are trying to define a new types of Stream, which I guess is possible, but that would imply defining integrity checks, length, NPAs, etc - in much the same way as ULE was developed. This would perhaps at most save 2 bytes, but would be incompatible with the ULE framework. I'm not sure I understand the motivation here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) In Section 4: With the exclusion of section 3.2, this seems to apply to any ULE Stream (and probably a GSE stream) - independent of the physical layer (DVB, ATSC, or whatever). In Section 4.1: Again, with the exclusion of section 3.2, this could be applicable to GSE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Gorry I also have a few minor editorial comments (which may be helpful if you decide to prepare an updated draft): --- Change /ULE stream/ to /ULE Stream --- It would seem worthwhile drawing the diagrams in the same representation as other ULE Extensions, using the 32-bit wide format of: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D| Length (15b) | Type = 0x???? | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --- I'd suggest creating a two reference subsections, one "Normative References" and one "Informative References" I'd suggest replacing GSE with the ETSI Specification reference: [GSE] TS 102 606 "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) Protocol, "European Telecommunication Standards, Institute (ETSI), 2007. I'd suggesting a normative reference to: [RFC4326] Fairhurst, G. and B. Collini-Nocker, "Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for transmission of IP datagrams over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream", RFC 4326, December 2005. I'd suggest placing the following as Informative references : [DIX] [ISO-MPEG2] [ITU-H222] [RFC3077] You may like to provide an informational reference to the following for terminology and architecture: [RFC4259] Montpetit, M.-J., Fairhurst, G., Clausen, H., Collini- Nocker, B., and H. Linder, "A Framework for Transmission of IP Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks", RFC 4259, November 2006. From owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sat Feb 23 11:25:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383873A6B0B for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:25:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.988 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3j9EdH7mRPjn for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (unknown [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827703A6B19 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NIhqO9008339 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:43:53 GMT Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m1NIhqnv008338 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:43:52 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f Received: from nav6.org (mail.nrg.cs.usm.my [219.93.2.104] (may be forged)) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m1NIh7B4008301 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:43:08 GMT Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by nav6.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CE61D60150; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:38:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nav6.org Received: from [192.168.1.6] (217.49.48.60.kmr03-home.tm.net.my [60.48.49.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nav6.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E501D60157; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:38:44 +0800 (MYT) Message-ID: <47C0691F.70307@nav6.org> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:42:39 +0800 From: Ang Way Chuang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk CC: TC Wan Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for ROHC over DVB References: <47B82AF0.7080605@nav6.org> <47B8982A.2020007@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B8EE6F.4050005@nav6.org> <47B94AFB.5060909@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47B95983.4070600@nav6.org> <47B95D6D.3020500@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <47BE9B0F.3020100@nav6.org> <47C05CA1.8060907@erg.abdn.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <47C05CA1.8060907@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > According to naming conventions, the first version that is officially > published by the IETF should be named something like: > > draft-wan-ipdvb-rohc-00.txt > > (i.e. draft- followed by first author, followed by WG followed by title) > > The format of the draft would have passed the ID-Submission process and > have been published except for the pre-IETF meeting cut-off. > > I think this should therefore be uploaded as soon as the archives > re-open - but it would be good to get feedback from people on the > current text. I will also send some comments on the draft soon, Thank you very much. > > Best wishes, > > Gorry > > > Ang Way Chuang wrote: >> Hi Gorry, >> As suggested, the draft has been converted to xml format. Attached >> are the update xml and txt files. I've included the change suggested >> by Rod Walsh in the draft. Some entries in the Terminologies section >> are copied from other RFCs, I hope that is bad practice for a >> candidate I-D. Certainly, this draft needs more polishing. I take the >> liberty to send it now, so that someone in this mailing list can help >> iron out some issues. English is not my native tongue, please forgive >> me for my poor command of the language. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> Regards, >> Ang Way Chuang >> >> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for your contribution - let's still diuscuss the technical >>> proposal and what should be done in this space using the ipdvb list - >>> It's great to have some input for discussion of this. >>> >>> In parallel, I'd encourage you to look at the tools and let me know >>> your thoughts and progress! >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Gorry >>> >>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>>>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>>>> Sorry for the brief inlined reply. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You should be able to post it yourself, I'll happily post it to >>>>>>> the list for you to see if there is feedback. Can you tell us >>>>>>> what you plan to do next? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think I know why the previous post failed. I am subscribed to >>>>>> the mailing list via another email address (wcang@nrg.cs.usm.my) >>>>>> which is an alias to the one I'm using. >>>>>> >>>>> Sounds likely. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you were intending to submit a draft for consideration by the >>>>>>> IETF, then you need to format it according to the guidelines >>>>>>> shown at: >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Aye, we want to submit this draft for consideration by the IETF. >>>>>> >>>>> The first thing to decide is what editor you wish to use - some >>>>> people use a text editor and nroff (these are in the minority), >>>>> many still use a microsoft word template (the main way until a few >>>>> years ago) and the rest use a XML-editor (now probably the best >>>>> way). You could of course just try to write a text file, but as you >>>>> receive comments and find that you have co-editors helping with the >>>>> draft, this is likely to become too difficult to do. >>>>> >>>>> See: >>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org//inventory/author-tools >>>>> >>>>> A good start would be to get a XML or DOC file in the format you >>>>> intend to use and add your text to this. >>>>> >>>>> The final Internet-Draft must conform to the fixed style (i.e. all >>>>> sections well-formed: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt >>>>> >>>>> This means in practice that you need to upload the document to the >>>>> checking tool at (this will tell you what is right and what is wrong) >>>>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ >>>> >>>> Aye, thanks for the pointer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You may well be aware that there is a deadline prior to an IETF >>>>> meeting, this is enforce today (which means you can not submit a >>>>> new document after 5pm US time today). You could try for this, but >>>>> if this is your first draft, then this may well be too little time >>>>> (it's easier if you've done this before). >>>> >>>> I see. I wasn't aware of that. This is our first draft, so I think >>>> it is wiser to discuss first. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the mean-time it seems some people have started reading your >>>>> inputs, so you could discuss this on the list and see if people agree. >>>>> >>>>> Gorry >>>>> >>>>> P.S. There is no formal IPDVB meeting at this IETF, or ROHC WG >>>>> meeting, >>>>> but if you were attending then please do let me know and we can talk. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can then upload the draft to the I-D repository using: >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want help formatting and submitting this, please do let us >>>>>>> know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, we appreciate any form of help. Please help us with >>>>>> formatting and submission. Thank you very much. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gorry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ang Way Chuang wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Dr. Fairhurst and members of IP over DVB charter, >>>>>>>> We are from Network Research Group of Universiti Sains >>>>>>>> Malaysia (http://nrg.cs.usm.my/satellite.htm). We would like to >>>>>>>> seek for your comments (and corrections) regarding our draft. >>>>>>>> Attached is the draft. >>>>>>>> Do note that the most of content in Terminologies section was >>>>>>>> copied from other Internet Drafts and RFCs. I think they are >>>>>>>> still incomplete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried to sent an email to ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, but I >>>>>>>> received no such email. I'm guessing the mailing list is not >>>>>>>> working properly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ang Way Chuang >>>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Gorry >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >