RE: [rohc] FW: ESP and header compression (ROHC)

["Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>]

> Taking the 'ROHC over re-ordering channels' question more 
> generally; RFC 3095 does not work in such an environment.  
> However, we are (I believe) trying to address this issue as 
> part of ROHC for TCP...

This was a design decision we made for 3095, but personally
I think the modifications needed to make it work also in case
of mis-ordering are small. If someone wants to look at this
and write some input on it, I would be more than happy.


> Anyway, tunnels (and especially IPsec) can simply be treated 
> as a link.  In which case, rohc can be applied on that link.

Yes, a "ROHC over tunnels" document could potentially be 
justifiable.


> In the case of IPsec/ESP it may make a great deal of sense to 
> compress the headers inside of the tunnel encapsulation.  The 
> VPN endpoints are probably disjoint from any particular 
> physical link that benefits from compression and so, to me, 
> it makes sense to do the compression in the two different places.

Yes, that is what you would have to do if encryption is applied
over the tunnel.

/L-E