[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LLC support in DVB , ATSC, MPEG-2? - DO WE NEED A NEW EXTENSION?
- To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
- Subject: Re: LLC support in DVB , ATSC, MPEG-2? - DO WE NEED A NEW EXTENSION?
- From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:04:19 +0100
- Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- In-reply-to: <>
- References: <41F945E4.1040403@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <fc121ffaffeecd5c6b14431f6c93f5ce@tzi.org> <41FE2FC4.6000805@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <904a5ff0bd74cd8d26b2e76016f88483@tzi.org> <41FE494D.2000607@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <>
- Reply-to: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
- Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
On Feb 02 2005, at 20:47 Uhr, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
I recommend that we publish ULE without this new specific
optimisation, with the understanding that once the requirements are
understood and optimisations considered, a separate short ID could be
written defining how to do ROHC (or optimised LLC... etc) over ULE.
That's certainly fine with me: the new extension header can be added at
any time.
We just should consider whether it is good to have implementations out
there that do ULE but don't do the compact LLC.
The protocol designer in me has the general feeling that the asymmetry
(can choose to use/not use MAC addresses with ethertype, must use MAC
with length) is wrong.
I can't point out the specific example that would validate that feeling
now -- apart from ROHC, whose details haven't been decided.
Gruesse, Carsten