Phil,
>The TCP-over-satellite group is misnamed. It should be called the
>TCP-over-large-bandwidth-delay-paths group. Many terrestrial paths now
>have bandwidth*delay products as large (or larger) than satellite
>paths.
I agree - but have always thought that it should have been
TCP-over-emerging-environments (as there are also issues related to
asymmetry, intermittent connectivity/handoffs and accommodation/isolation
of lossy media). I'm happy that the TCP-over-satellite group got it's run,
I think it's achieved the goal of having folks think about environments
they weren't thinking about before.
I've been approached by folks in the wireless/mobile areas who would like
to get similar mind-share for end-to-end solutions, but who are afraid
they will be told their environment is too "crappy" and that they should
clean it up.
Being able to engineer end-to-end solutions to the performance pitfalls
showing up in emerging environments within the bounds of a WG charter would
be a useful thing.
Regards,
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:38 EST