[e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

[Spencer Dawkins]

OK, I'll byte (ha!).

And the difference to the network between 

(1) a TCP flow and 

(2) a non-TCP flow tunneled over TCP 

is?

(signed) curious

Or are we saying "a non-TCP flow tagged as TCP to get through
firewalls, but not conforming to TCP congestion avoidance"? I'd
be thrilled to see that...

It's interesting to look at the contents of tunneled packets for
traffic analysis, but if you tunnel over TCP/HTTP to get through
firewalls, the network thinks (correctly!) it's carrying
TCP/HTTP, end of sentence. 

I would be interested in seeing references for "traffic that
masquarades as TCP, and probably as HTTP as well (how else would
you get through proxies?), but doesn't behave like TCP"...

--- Cannara <cannara at attglobal.net> wrote:
> John, I don't know enough about Inet2 to argue, but what you
> say makes sense
> from what my friends at Stanford, who manage parts of the SU
> net, have to
> say.  I believe, as the other emails have pointed out, that
> unless one
> actually looks at pkt contents, one can't really get good
> stats, due to the
> mimicking of TCP to get through filters.  This is likely why
> tools used by
> CAIDA, Sprint, etc. would have to be examined to see what
> they're actually
> looking at, if anything, other than simple port #s.
> 
> Alex