On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 10:51:33AM +0700, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > Per the WG meeting, discussing on the list: > > This is good work and I support it.
Ditto. > I would remind folks that TCP is NOT the only transport protocol available > and that perhaps we should be considering QUIC while we’re at it. In > particular, flooding is a (relatively) low bandwidth operation in the > modern network and we could avoid slow-start issues by using QUIC. I'm ambivalent of the transport, but agree that TCP shouldn't be the default answer. My concerns that I tried raising via jabber summarize roughly as follows: - TCP is prone to interesting backpressure issues, typically as a result of packet loss or slow receivers. - TCP timers can react poorly in some environments where you may want time sensitive things. This includes something as long as 3 second BGP hold timers. - IGPs have a lot of interesting timer hacks to try to ensure that a given domain has a consistent database prior to running an SPF. In the face of "stuck" flooding due to backpressure or other things, some of these may need to be revisited. It's been over a year since I looked at QUIC. I agree with Tony that a number of the properties it had on my last read are desirable. I'd suggest that its behavior (especially timers) in the event of packet loss should be given a look at based on the comments above. - Jeff _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
