RE: FC over IP: Requirements

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Marjorie,

Congestion avoidance and protocol level fragmentation to name but a few of
the many features required for robust use on IP would still be offered by
this SCTP extension.  Although possible after man years of work on new UDP
or raw datagram protocols, SCTP provides a uniform means to obtain common
features desired in object (messaging) protocols of which FC is but one.
The removal of retransmit limits dispersion in time of such messages but
places the burden on a less effective retry mechanism unaware of the packet
loss until extensive timeouts.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Marjorie Krueger
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 1:55 PM
> To: Randall R. Stewart
> Cc: ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: FC over IP: Requirements
>
>
> "Randall R. Stewart" wrote:
> ..snip..
>
> > I would think you may possibly want the unreliable transport extension
> > that we are currently working on.. but this does seem a item for
> > debate... in any event, it is always available if the WG decides it
> > needs it(the unreliable extension)...
>
> What does the SCTP unreliable transport option offer that UDP doesn't?
>
> -Marjorie
>