On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, William Ivancic wrote:
> > When rate-based, SCPS-TP is still sending TCP-style packets, so the
> >protocol identifier is valid.
>
> I disagree. IMHO, one should not knowingly advertise a protocol number if
> one is not conforming to those protocol characteristics.
well, that would be enough to kill pwe3 work entirely if anyone there
agreed with that.
And that doesn't lead to robust implementations; Savage attacks could
bot be carried out because Savage would be compelled to use a
different protocol number...
> Just because the header is the same style does not mean that it is
> the same protocol.
So I should change the protocol number if I e.g. turn off the Nagle
algorithm? I don't think so; there's a lot of timing slack in the
evolving TCP specifications and a lot of variation in their
implementations.
> Assuming that certain protocols react in certain ways is much
> easier and manageable - albeit somewhat dangerous.
and does not lead to robust implementations.
> IMHO, SCPS should advertise it's own protocol number when
> running rate-based, no congestion control.
just so that any assumptions made by intermediate systems hold true?
not very e2e of you.
And I don't see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-floyd-tcp-highspeed-00.ps
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-floyd-tcp-highspeed-00.txt
advocating a new protocol number either, even though it modifies the
congestion control mechanisms.
L.
<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email protected]>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 14 2002 - 15:29:58 EDT