[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPComp rfc2393bis-00
>>>>> "itojun" == itojun <itojun@iijlab.net> writes:
>>> Thanks for clarification, I did not notice the following. I
>>> would add a word ONLY, like "and are used ONLY for manual setup".
>>>>> 0-63 define well-known compression algorithms, which require no
>>>>> additional information, and are used for manual setup. The
>> There is a second use - to save the CPU cycles of the
>> CPI-to-algorithm conversion, even when the algorithm is negotiated
>> dynamically. That is the rationale for the note in the CPI
>> definition:
itojun> So, the negotiated CPI and a CPI on the packet will be
itojun> different in this case. Am I right? negotiated CPI: 16-bit
itojun> value in "negotiated" range (256-61439) algorithm to be used:
itojun> well-known algorithm X CPI on packet: X I may need a more
itojun> explicit wording here.
That can't be right.
Whatever is negotiated should be used. The notion of using well known
CPI values can be used when picking the value to propose, but it can't
make you use a value different from what's proposed...
paul
References: