[e2e] overlay over TCP

[Joe Touch]

David P. Reed wrote:
> The reason not to depend on SCTP is the same reason that UDP isn't 
> adequate. 

I said DCCP, not SCTP, FWIW, and for a number of reasons.

> The social (non-technical) processes of the "internet 
> community" have labeled anything non-TCP as POISON, KEEP OUT.
> We have middleboxes and routers that chuck stuff like that on the floor.

Sure - at that point, you're stuck going over TCP, but then you're also 
stuck with a few other things:

	- ACK aggregation delays
	- messages split across packets (lack of fate sharing,
	  so higher loss rates at the message level)
	- NATing that will kill interior apps anyway
		any app the NAT doesn't _already_ know about

> Interop is about allowing everything not explicitly prohibited, but 
> don't tell that to the "corporate IT" folks, who want to give you 
> freedom from pesky things like ways to do your job better...  some jerk 
> with a beard and a technical education knows how and when you should 
> communicate, and he will let you know what communications technology you 
> will be allowed to use.   Cisco's firewall division tells him what's OK, 
> and God (or TPC from the President's Analyst) tells Cisco.

In that case, you're safer doing IP over HTTP (yes, there is such an 
animal).

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20050113/79a7b698/signature.bin