[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
At 02:43 PM 2/18/97 -0800, Karl Fox wrote:
>Bob Monsour writes:
>> The proposed compression mechanism is aimed at the ESP payload data field
>> and (from my limited understanding) VJ header compression operates on the
>> segment/packet headers only. So, I don't see them as alternatives as much
>> as complements to each other. There would certainlyh have to be agreement
>> (perhaps KMP negotiation) between the communicating parties to perform VJ
>> header compression.
>
>I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. If VJ header
>compression, used either by itself or in conjunction with another
>compression algorithm, reduces the average size of the resulting
>packets, isn't it a net benefit? Keep in mind that VJ compression is
>very low overhead, which might be very important for upgrading
>underpowered systems. It would also help offset the huge cost of
>running IPSEC over dialup links, where TELNET packets go from a few
>bytes (with VJ and no AH/ESP) to more like a hundred (with AH/ESP and
>no VJ).
After reading my response, I think we're in violent agreement (I was just
being needlessly unclear). I agree that using VJ header compression *does*
provide a net benefit, both in conjunction with a payload compression
scheme as well as by itself. There's no reason you can't do both. I was
just getting at the fact that the two sides would have to agree to do VJ,
just as they have to agree to do everything else they do in IPSec.
-Bob
Follow-Ups: