On 2007-9-17, at 17:40, ext John Day wrote:
Fast Select was a single packet that opened, transfered data, and
closed a connection. The same as what Mr. Ford's description.
What you outline above is very different from SST. I'm surprised that
after reading the paper you'd think that there
On 2007-9-14, at 21:54, ext Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
I actually don't think that having multiple concurrent TCP
connections
between two peers is a bad thing. sure we could have a transport
protocol that provided multiple streams, but why bother when
Dumb question of the month. With the exception of the last claim
(...can prioritize...), this could just as easily describe SCTP.
What here is new? And define prioritize?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
You might be interested in Bryan Ford's SST paper from this year's
On 2007-9-17, at 12:13, ext Fred Baker wrote:
Dumb question of the month. With the exception of the last claim
(...can prioritize...), this could just as easily describe SCTP.
What here is new? And define prioritize?
For how this relates to SCTP, let me refer you to Section 6. (And
yes,
Hi Lars,
comment in-line.
Best regards
Michael
On Sep 17, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2007-9-17, at 12:13, ext Fred Baker wrote:
Dumb question of the month. With the exception of the last claim
(...can prioritize...), this could just as easily describe SCTP.
What here is
I am afraid that I must agree with Fred. There is nothing very new
in this paper and its publication is merely another indication of how
far down the blind alley we have gone. I was surprised SIGCOMM even
published dressing up X.25 Fast Select with fancy words. Amazing.
At 2:13 -0700
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Day wrote:
I am afraid that I must agree with Fred. There is nothing very new in this
paper and its publication is merely another indication of how far down the
blind alley we have gone. I was surprised SIGCOMM even published dressing up
X.25 Fast Select with fancy
Fast Select was a single packet that opened, transfered data, and
closed a connection. The same as what Mr. Ford's description. There
was nothing remotely transactional about Fast Select. It was a
direct counter to the proposal to put datagrams in X.25. It was a
silly idea, then and it
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
Offhand I don't know why it should be necessary to build a mechanism
that spans several transport lifetimes.
TLS session caches. HTTP cookies. FTP control connections.
Apps that want to deal with concurrent data streams within one user's
session
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
Offhand I don't know why it should be necessary to build a mechanism
that spans several transport lifetimes.
TLS session caches. HTTP cookies. FTP control connections.
okay fine (at least for the first two) but should
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
I actually don't think that having multiple concurrent TCP connections
between two peers is a bad thing. sure we could have a transport
protocol that provided multiple streams, but why bother when concurrent
TCP connections works pretty well?
I
David Conrad wrote:
How do you renumber the IP address stored in the struct sockaddr_in in a
long running critical application?
...
If you had a separation between locator and identifier, the application
could bind to the identifier and renumbering events could occur on the
locators without
Offhand I don't know why it should be necessary to build a mechanism
that spans several transport lifetimes. I would much prefer that we
re-engineer our transport protocols to let them work in terms of
endpoint IDs. In particular, checkpoints would seem to make life more
complicated for
On Sep 13, 2007, at 23:00 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
The idea is this: An association is an end-to-end relationship
between a pair of applications that potentially spans several
transport lifetimes.
Wouldn't that be the OSI session layer (that IP doesn't have)?
taking a cue from ISO/OSI, the
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The idea is this: An association is an end-to-end relationship
between a pair of applications that potentially spans several
transport lifetimes.
Wouldn't that be the OSI session layer (that IP doesn't have)?
Not necessarily. A
Tony Li wrote:
A key question here is whether the 'association' is a single connection
or not. While the association may span the change of underlying
infrastructure, the real question is whether it presents a single
concatenated transport abstraction or if it's multiple connections. I
16 matches
Mail list logo
