mail archive Transport Area Working Group
tsvwg.ietf.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (187 other Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) lists)
Subscription Options
- RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
- Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
- Low traffic list: less than 3 messages per day
- This list contains about 1,207 messages, beginning Mar 2011
- 0 messages added yesterday
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no
An improvement for draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-02
Ad
Yesterday afternoon I had a talk with Diego López, and he told me a question that I had not considered in the current version of the draft. The question is: Can different protocols can be included into the same tunnel? E.g. Can I put RTP/UDP/IP packets and UDP/IP packets in the same tunnel? This could be very useful in some scenarios: - A carrier using a faster network for delivering real-time packets, could use this network for VoIP and also for gaming traffic. - Sometimes, gamers use to talk via VoIP while playing. The cause for this is that some games are played in two teams. So the packets of the game and VoIP could share the tunnel. After thinking about it, I think there would be no problems for that: ROHC is able to compress both traffic, so the only thing is that the kind of protocol compressed has to be stored in the context, in addition to the fields that are the same for every packet. Every compressed packet included in the tunnel has a context identifier, which associates it with one of the stored contexts. So, once we have read the identifier, we can also know which protocols have been compressed. So this could be considered in the implementation, and I think it would not represent a problem. It could even be possible if one flow is compressed with ROHC, other with ECRTP, and other is not compressed at all. Any thoughts about it? Regards, Jose
Hi,On 28 Mar 2012, at 09:27 , Jose Saldana wrote: > Yesterday afternoon I had a talk with Diego López, and he told me a question that I had not considered in the current version of the draft. The question is: > > Can different protocols can be included into the same tunnel? E.g. Can I put RTP/UDP/IP packets and UDP/IP packets in the same tunnel?Just because of Jose's allusion I'd like to express our interest, as network operators, in approaches like this. It is not only about gaming applications (as relevant as they are to provide a satisfactory service to many users), but about many other real-time multiperson interactions: simulation, telediagnostics, e-science that I'm sure will become pervasive in the near future. Understanding traffic patterns and seeking for the optimization of network usage by these applications are a key issue and definitely worth of IETF's consideration. Be goode,