Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RE: Piggybacking [Was: IPsec, IKE, MIPv6 and conc ensus ]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:56:19 +0300

Michael Thomas wrote:
>    Note that links with low bandwidth are fairly
>    likely to want to use CRTP/ROHC themselves, so the
>    actual cost of the IP6 header should be close to
>    nil since it is almost completely compressible.

Only if the IPv6 header is part of a flow. For occasional signaling messages
there is likely to be no header compression at all.

Anyway, I'd like we have a conclusive end to the piggybacking discussion. So
far we know that with IPsec protection of BUs piggybacking is likely not
possible because of SPD lookup issues at recipients. If the BU specific
security solution is adopted, there seems to be no harm from the
piggybacking at the recipient.

This issue is likely not a determining factor for choosing the BU security
solution. Anyway, when we have a solution for the BU protection, the
implications for piggybacking should be documented.

	Jarno

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT)

> there is likely to be no header compression at all.

   I would assume that hosts who send BU's would likely
   have a flow already established. BU's, after all, are
   optimizations, and the MN should probably be judicious
   about only sending BU's to active flows if it is bandwidth
   constrained.

	Mike