On 6/25/12 10:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
SCTP is coming along, and it has a lot of promise.
Doesn't SCTP suffer from the same problem as SHIM6 was said to be
suffering from, ie that now all of a sudden end systems control where
packets go
On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this instead
of punting on it when developing IPv6.
Dear Owen,
The IETF offered a HA solution that operates at the transport level. It
solves jumbo frame error detection rate issues, head of queue
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this instead
of punting on it when developing IPv6.
Dear Owen,
The IETF offered a HA solution that operates at the transport
On 6/25/12 10:17 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Otis
do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this
instead of punting on it when developing IPv6.
Dear Owen,
The IETF
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
The Internet should use more than port 80 and port 443. Is extending
entrenched TCP cruft really taking the Internet to a better and safer
place?
isn't the 'internet should use more than 80/443' really: Some
compelling
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this instead
of punting on it when developing IPv6.
The IETF offered a HA solution that operates at the transport level.
The
On 6/25/12 12:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Otis
do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this
instead of punting on it when developing IPv6.
The IETF offered a HA
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/25/12 12:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
How does SCTP address the most immediate problem with
multiaddressed TCP servers: the client doesn't rapidly find a
currently working address from the set initially offered by A
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Does SCTP operate on a list of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses received from
the application when it asks for a connect, parallelizing its attempt
to reach a live address? Or a DNS name which it resolves to find those
addresses? Or
On Jun 25, 2012 6:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Does SCTP operate on a list of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses received from
the application when it asks for a connect, parallelizing its attempt
to reach a live
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
SCTP is coming along, and it has a lot of promise.
Doesn't SCTP suffer from the same problem as SHIM6 was said to be
suffering from, ie that now all of a sudden end systems control where
packets go and there is going to be a bunch of people on this
11 matches
Mail list logo
