[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

To: rmonsour@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:35:29 -0800 (PST)
CC: karl@ascend.com, rmonsour@earthlink.net, dpalma@netcom.com, carrel@ipsec.org, caronni@tik.ee.ethz.ch, dharkins@cisco.com, ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19970218210258.00947440@earthlink.net> (message from Bob Monsour on Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:03:06 -0800)
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

>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

I point out that VJ TCP/IP header compression assumes in-order
delivery of the compressed packets. This is true over a point-to-point
link, but it is not necessarily true over the Internet as a whole. So
unless you're proposing that the IPSEC reorder packets, VJ header
compression is not an option there.

Phil

References:

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

From: Bob Monsour <rmonsour@earthlink.net>

Prev by Date: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by Date: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Prev by thread: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by thread: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread