Solution for IPv6

[Ghassane Aniba <Ghassane.Aniba@sophia.inria.fr>]

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.

> The charter has also suggested we should consider compressed packet headers
> which may significantly change things for the smaller packet sizes.
> 
> > >
> > > > > > Thanks, and i'm waiting for all your remark or ask.
> > > > > >
> >
> > Aniba.
> >

Aniba.

-- 
Ghassane ANIBA
INRIA (Projet PLANETE)             | Email :
ghassane.aniba@sophia.inria.fr  
2004, Route des Lucioles BP 93     | Phone : +33 4 92 38 75 63
06902 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX France| Fax   : +33 4 92 38 79 78