What is IP Header Compression?
Developed and approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force, the RoHC protocol for Header Compression is a mandatory component of UMTS standards. According to Effnet, Header Compression can reduce the size of IPv6 packets by as much as 75 percent, drastically reducing the bandwidth and infrastructure required to support voice-over-IP, video conferencing, interactive gaming, streaming media and other mobile Internet applications.

Determining Cost Savings
Working with consulting firm Logical Tree AB, Effnet conducted a comprehensive analysis of Internet traffic and mobile network performance characteristics. They then developed a financial model to calculate the savings that would result from using IP Header Compression in these mobile networks.

The resulting financial model predicts that investment dollars would be wasted moving IP packet headers between radio network controllers, base transceiver stations and mobile handsets. But by implementing the RoHC protocol, operators can reduce IP headers to less than 1 percent of the total IP user traffic by 2005.

In addition, the model takes into account over 20 adjustable input values such as traffic mix, message lengths and types of IP packet headers. Based on these input values, the model predicts that if the total investment through 2005 is $100-billion, an operator could save $15-billion in unneeded infrastructure equipment, representing 15 percent of the total.

For more information: http://www.effnet.com

MobileInfo.Com’s Coments and Advisory: IP header compression is only one way of optimizing wireless traffic. This is good approach and should be embedded in IP6 and 3.G and 4G networks. Having agrred with the approach, let us not be carried away by the estimates of dollar savings projected by the consulting firm. We have seen a number of approaches to solving this problem. What we need is a holistic approach that looks at optimization at different network layers, including content optimization. Unfortunately, network operators are less interested in this than they are in inefficient use of the bandwidth. We think that it is a misguided strategy. More efficient use of scarce wirelss bandwidth and therefore less expensive application deloyment will lead to greater number of applications getting wireless-enabled. This will lead to ever-increasing use of wireless link capacity on 2.5 G and 3G networks.