Finally reached the end of the thread.
== FR uses DCCP-Data because FR measures congestion on keepalives.
Congestion on things like Syncs are not measured in the same way, since Syncs
are non-data packets. While DCCP does attempt to measure congestion on
Syncs it charges the congestion to
Hello Eddie,
There was rather a flutrry of email, so pleased you are keeping up. See
in-line.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Eddie Kohler wrote:
Hi guys,
This thread is amazingly huge (bikeshedding?) so I may respond a couple
times.
I think we made a mistake in DCCP when we said that the API
On 28 Mar 2007, at 08:09, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
...
Applications that want keepalives should define some corresponding
data format: a one-byte datagram would suffice.
Not sure I agree, I'd rather the apps called-down to the transport
using a control function and asked them to do this.
On 2007-3-28, at 9:40, ext Eddie Kohler wrote:
I think we made a mistake in DCCP when we said that the API SHOULD
report zero-length packets to the receiving application. (I think
Greg Minshall warned us this was a bad choice, too!) The Faster
Restart draft therefore modifies this
On 2007-3-26, at 14:09, ext Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Thoughts and comments are welcome!
I'd be good to keep the discussion in RFC1122, Section 4.2.3.6 on TCP
keep-alives in mind:
A keep-alive mechanism periodically probes the other
end of a connection when the connection is
Colin Perkins wrote:
Gorry,
Some comments/thoughts inline.
On 26 Mar 2007, at 12:09, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
This email is to start a discussion on the use and requirements for
protocol
keep-alive packets in DCCP. This is a follow-up to discussing the
RTP/DCCP
draft.
A keep-alive packet
]
Sent: 27 March 2007 11:48
To: Lars Eggert; ext Gorry Fairhurst
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Hi All,
I don't think we're really talking about whether there should be
keep-alives or not, we're talking about using zero-length packets
Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
I have some doubts.
The question is Who has control over Who? Does the application layer control
the transport protocol, or do transport protocols have their own autonomy?
So if the application does'nt send any data, should the transport protocol
send keep alives by
:23 AM
To: Phelan, Tom; 'Lars Eggert'; 'ext Gorry Fairhurst'
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Dear Tom,
I agree with you on this issue, and I guess we SHOULD have a new
packet
type called DCCP-Alive packet, that could be used for DCCP level
: Phelan, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 March 2007 11:48
To: Lars Eggert; ext Gorry Fairhurst
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Hi All,
I don't think we're really talking about whether there should be
keep-alives or not, we're talking
Hi Arjuna,
[snipped]
The obvious question that arises is why does the application send a
zero-length datagram? And why should the DCCP sender send any
DCCP-data
packet when the application has nothing to send! So my belief is that
DCCP-data packets have zero length application area has no
Hi Gorry,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
Dear Tom
(into April)
Gorry
Phelan, Tom wrote:
Hi Gorry,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets
On 3/27/07, Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007, at 17:06, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
So,
From all the thread so far
* I have some ideas of what RTP-like applications want. I'm not
sure there is a need to send/receive a 0-byte Data packet as a way
to make keep-alives happen.
Not that the issue of the goodness of keep-alives is uninteresting, it
just isn't the real issue at hand :-).
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:38 AM
To: ext Gorry Fairhurst
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] Why do we have
Hi Gorry,
I think this is a nice taxonomy of keep-alive use cases. The question,
I think, is what are the problems that arise when zero-length packets
are used for (all) keep-alives? One of the problems appears to be
disambiguation.
For use 1 (NAT refresh), no one at the receiver cares about
Gorry,
Some comments/thoughts inline.
On 26 Mar 2007, at 12:09, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
This email is to start a discussion on the use and requirements for
protocol
keep-alive packets in DCCP. This is a follow-up to discussing the
RTP/DCCP
draft.
A keep-alive packet is defined here as a
17 matches
Mail list logo
