Re: Solution for IPv6

["Kearney" <clausen@cosy.sbg.ac.at>]

From: "Ghassane Aniba" <Ghassane.Aniba@sophia.inria.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:32 AM
Subject: Solution for IPv6


> Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> >
> > <<snip>>
> >
> > >
> > > If we take in consideration, that most of IP packet are 1500 or 576,
and
> > > 40 or 48, and with a simple calcul, we see that the overhead don't
> > > affect.
> > > One thing more, i'll present another schema of encapsulation, into
> > > reduce the treatment on board the satellite.
> > >
> >
> > NOT a good starting point. We should also be addressing IPv6, and not
constrain
> > the discussion to individual types of application. Some new applications
have
> > very different packet length distributions.
> >
>
> In my opinion, to propose a good and the best solution, we must wait for
> the satistics of the deployment of IPv6.
> The proposed encapsulation don't depend totaly on the lenght of the IP
> packets. I agree that if we change the lenght, we'll have other values,
> but it don't mean that it's a problem for us.
>
I disagree - we should NOT base the design on a parameter value which could
(and will) change such as packet statistics. We should comu up with a
flexible design that can support different services. Please take a look at
the RTP design, for example, for a flexible and lean protocol design.


> > The charter has also suggested we should consider compressed packet
headers
> > which may significantly change things for the smaller packet sizes.
> >
we should keep in mind that header compression might be required by some
services but this should not be included in the design of an encapsulation
for a link/subnetwork level.

--cls