[e2e] overlay over TCP

[Joe Touch]

Coene Lode wrote:
>>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.
> 
> And what might be those reasons????
> DCCP will have just about the same deployment difficulties that any other
> new transport protocol has to jump through....

Recall that David Reed's initial post asked for:
	1- TCP-friendliness
	2- no app penalty for reliability or in-order delivery

SCTP does (1) but NOT (2).

DCCP does both (1) and (2) as requested.

There are other reasons, notably SCTP's complexity compared to DCCP, as 
well as features such as multihoming and multistream muxing that may 
result in an unstable foundation for overlays, e.g., that want to do 
their own dynamic routing.

...
> Seriously: you can extend TCP or deploy an already existing transport
> protocol that gets close to what you want.
> If it has to do something similar to UDP then PR-SCTP and/or DCCP might do
> the job....
> (PR-SCTP: Partial relialability extension for SCTP)

Why bother with PR-SCTP when a much simpler DCCP will suffice, esp. when 
other SCTP properties may be (IMO, are) harmful to overlays?

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/20050119/8ff13637/signature.bin