The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>]

In message <02951023174820/0006078043DC3EM@MCIMAIL.COM>, Tim Dwight writes:
> Curtis:
> 
> What I was attempting to propose, should have nothing to do with TCP.
> All the fields proposed to be compressed, are at the IP layer.  I was
> imagining both ATM VCC's between routers (where relatively little 
> IP header compression might be possible) and ATM VCC's between hosts
> (where more could be compressed, e.g., the destination address).  That's
> the reason for proposing the negotiation of compressable-fields, at
> VCC establishment.
> 
> I apologize if I've re-invented something the group has already abandoned,
> and if I've been less than clear.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Tim Dwight
> MCI


I don't know that TULIP and TUNIC are abandonned, but there is clearly
a similarity and they have at least been backburnered mostly because
it is not clear that the saving are substantial enough for the effort
at this time and the fact that it is not at all clear to what extent
VCs dedicated to single flows will be used, particularly in the router
to router case.

Curtis