[e2e] What should e2e protocols know about lower layers?

[Ted Faber]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 12:29:06PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: Ted Faber <faber at ISI.EDU>
> > And to beat the horse one more time, the checksum is a bad choice for an
> > example of a protocol feature to turn off in local operation anyway.  
> 
> Yes, turning off the TCP checksum for "local" connections is bad idea,
> but not as bad as turning off slow start.  (maybe using a cached initial
> congestion window is not turning off slow start)

On the off chance it wasn't clear, I think doing either based solely on
subnet addresses is a bad idea.  In fact, I'm having a hard time
thinking of any change to TCP I'd be willing to make just on the basis
of knowing my host was on the same subnet.

> 
> My point in recalling checksum debate was the hope of using it to
> short-circuit some of the slow-start debate, not to reopen the checksum
> debate.

I didn't really mean to restart the checksum debate  either, but I'm
still learning to resist the cheese they put in front of those ratholes.
Sorry for taking it off topic.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20011015/b972f5ef/attachment.bin