RE: ACFC

Hi James,

You rightly guessed it. It is the "common" case, I was enquiring about.

I was wondering if cases where we had uncompressed fields even when ACFC
and PFC were configured, we may not necessarily handle it in the fast
path and yet handle it in the slow path.

Thanks,
Vishwas
-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:22 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Pppext] ACFC

Vishwas Manral writes:
> I had another small follow up question. When would we (if we ever
would)
> have data traffic having uncompressed fields, even when compression
was
> negotiated (both ACFC and PFC)?

Any time the sender feels like it.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question correctly.  If you're
actually asking whether this is "common" or not, or if there are
particular deployment scenarios in which it happens, I don't know.

If your goal here is somehow to avoid implementing this correctly, so
that all your system handles is header-compressed messages, then I'd
strongly caution against that.  Being more strict than what the RFC
requires is a good way to end up with interoperability problems.

> I know the RFC states that we should treat both un-compressed and
> compressed header fields in the same way when compression is
negotiated.

And, indeed, you must.

If you don't like that, then you can always refuse to use these
options instead.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677



_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext