RE: Last Word on An IPS Transport Protocol?

[Black_David@emc.com]

Yes, SCTP is a suitable protocol *because* it complies
with RFC 2581; I thought this was clear from prior
discussion on the list.  --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Douglas Otis [SMTP:dotis@sanlight.net]
> Sent:	Monday, September 25, 2000 5:53 PM
> To:	Black_David@emc.com; ycheng@advansys.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:	RE: Last Word on An IPS Transport Protocol?
> 
> David,
> 
> Some have interpreted your comment to infer SCTP is not a suitable
> protocol
> for discussion.  As SCTP does include TCP like congestion control (RFC
> 2581
> compliance), could you clarify SCTP as a suitable protocol of merit.
> 
> Doug
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Black_David@emc.com
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:10 AM
> > To: ycheng@advansys.com; Black_David@emc.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: Last Word on An IPS Transport Protocol?
> >
> >
> > > My contention is the current TCP congestion control is NOT good enough
> and
> > > the ACK traffic on a network with long latency delay is BAD.  We must
> have
> > > streamed transfer on a network with long latency.  Therefore, defining
> the
> > > ACK of TCP is critical.  The TCP header format is not sacred to me.
> >
> > It's time to put my WG co-chair hat on and play "bad cop" ...
> >
> > There are experimental and production results indicating that TCP is
> > capable of saturating arbitrarily high bandwidth networks with
> arbitrarily
> > long delays.  Buffering proportional to the bandwidth-delay product is
> > a good idea, so this doesn't come for free.  Streaming transfer
> > can be achieved without playing these sort of ACK games - of course
> > if congestion is encountered, TCP backs off dramatically.
> >
> > This WG does not have the license to fundamentally change TCP's
> > congestion control algorithm or to use a transport that does not
> implement
> > congestion control in a sufficiently TCP-like manner (RFC 2581
> compliance
> > is sufficient); the co-chairs and ADs will reject any document that
> > tries to do either of these things.  Please don't consume list bandwidth
> > in further discussion of this.
> >
> > Developing a new transport with sufficient congestion control is going
> to
> > take time.  If the WG were to go in this direction, at least a year
> should
> > be added to all of the completion milestones in the charter.
> >
> > --David
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> > black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >