On 8. Sep 2022, at 00:05, Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > But it is architecturally wrong to call what ROHC or SCHC as carrying an > upper layer protocol. They carry what is in our architecture a Transport > Layer protocol, acting in many ways as part of the IP layer itself…
Header Compression is organized layer violation, so even trying to assign a layer to it is futile. Header Compression is usually done hop-by-hop as a local optimization, invisible to the endpoints; there is no end-to-end semantics that would be typical for a Transport Layer protocol. The discussion so far about whether SCHC (or ROHC) would be IPv6 Extension Header Types seems to be rather sophistic to me, with little practical relevance of choosing one or the other. Is there any behavior that would change based on whether they are IPv6 Extension Header Types or not? Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
