nanog mailing list archives
Re: Train wreck (was "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?")
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:47:44 +0200
On 7 apr 2008, at 18:18, Fred Baker wrote:
(4) When it is pointed out that instead of complaining about TCP in cases where it is the wrong protocol it may be more useful to use the transport designed for the purpose, researchers who presumably are expert on matters in the transport layer respond in complete surprise.
There is of course the issue of migrating from one transport to another with NATs and firewalls thrown in for good measure, which is worse than migrating to IPv6 in some ways and only significantly better in one (no need to upgrade routers).
Current thread:
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot), (continued)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Mike Gonnason (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Marcin Cieslak (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Greg Skinner (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Mike Gonnason (Apr 09)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Lucy Lynch (Apr 07)
- Train wreck (was "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?") Fred Baker (Apr 07)
- Re: Train wreck (was "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?") Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 07)