[e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

[Panos GEVROS]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hari Balakrishnan" <hari at nms.lcs.mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

> 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.

If I had to choose between
i)  optimise a L2 protocol for a particular transport and
ii) optimise a transport protocol in order to cope with different L2
protocols (not simultaneously)

I would almost instinctively choose option ii)  (probably becuase I have
convinced myself that if it is e2e it must be good :-)
without suggesting that L2 protocols should not be "well-designed" (whatever
this means)

suppose the wireless segment is at the edge of the path, one of the two
endpoints could be informed of the L2 technology and may negotiate with the
other endpoint the use of a particular "transmission control behaviour" -
provided that the transport offers several such options tailored for
specific environments, (the transport also offers the same api to the
application developer and can informed about the nature of the link it is
attached to)

the negotiation may succeed or fail based on policy and/or compatiblity
criteria;  the"server" may grant or reject the request and in certain
envirnonments I wouldnt worry too much about being tcp-friendly

imho this looks like a cleaner solution

Panos