[e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

[Spencer Dawkins]

For others - 
 
Hari's suggestion is the tack taken by PILC - the LINK draft
says "make your new subnetwork provide very low error rates",
and ERROR (RFC 3155)provides a pretty weak hack at what can be
accomplished end-to-end over existing subnetworks that don't
provide very low error rates.

More details at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html, for the
curious...

Spencer

--- Hari Balakrishnan <hari at nms.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> TCP over wireless has been an area of active work for a while.
>  It seems to be 
> generally true that good local recovery solutions perform
> pretty well and I 
> haven't seen any end-to-end solution that performs as well as
> good local 
> optimizations.
> 
> Even if there were reasonable end-to-end solutions, from an
> architectural 
> standpoint it seems to me to be a mistake to try and deal with
> wireless 
> vagaries as an end-to-end problem.  In my opinion,
> well-designed link-layer and 
> MAC protocols are the way to go.
> 
> Hari