At 08:26 PM 6/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
>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.
If I read the workings of this group correctly, it is more like gateway
implementations were one knows the network between the gateways and is
controlling things appropriately.
> > 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.
??? I don't understand the comment. I'm taking SCPS-TP end-to-end, not
SCPS-TP as a gateway.
>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.
If I interpreted the draft correctly, congestion control is still used
here, just modified.
Will
=======================================
Will Ivancic
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Road MS 54-5
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Phone +1 (216)433-3494
Fax +1 (216) 433-8705
Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: ivancic
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 14 2002 - 16:04:40 EDT