Protocol Extensions for ECRTP over MPLS
draft-ash-avt-ecrtp-over-mpls-protocol-02
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual in gen area)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Gerald Ash | ||
Last updated | 2005-07-05 (Latest revision 2004-12-27) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired (IESG: Dead) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Allison J. Mankin | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
VoIP typically uses the encapsulation voice/RTP/UDP/IP. When MPLS labels are added, this becomes voice/RTP/UDP/IP/MPLS-labels. For an MPLS VPN, the packet header is at least 48 bytes, while the voice payload is often no more than 30 bytes, for example. Header compression can significantly reduce the overhead through various compression mechanisms, such as enhanced compressed RTP (ECRTP). We consider using MPLS to route ECRTP compressed packets over an MPLS LSP without compression/decompression cycles at each router. Such an ECRTP over MPLS capability can increase the bandwidth efficiency as well as processing scalability of the maximum number of simultaneous compressed flows that use header compression at each router. In this draft we propose to use RSVP-TE extensions to signal the header compression context and other control messages between the ingress and egress LSR. We re-use the methods in ECRTP to determine the context.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)