From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Feb 6 16:39:15 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5CE37B401; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C261943F75; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:39:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from emerger.yogotech.com (emerger.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14883; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:39:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by emerger.yogotech.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h170d0EQ066292; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:39:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15939.36.855969.496240@emerger.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:39:00 -0700 To: Doug Barton Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: High-latency/long-distance IP stack (was Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT access access.master access.ports) In-Reply-To: <20030206022854.G40993@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> References: <20030205233916.6156C2A89E@canning.wemm.org> <20030205231630.D32815-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20030206022854.G40993@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Moved to -chat ] > > Didn't Harti Brandt say that he was working on satelite communications? > > Perhaps he has plans to allow even larger RTTs to work well. :) > > > > "FreeBSD: The best connection to Mars... or AOL" > > You laugh, but various people, including Vint Cerf, are currently working > on an IP stack (or something that can be made to look like an IP stack) > that will work across those kinds of distances. It really isn't that hard to do that, IMNSHO. The hardest part is finding good 'initial' values for timeouts (if the first packet gets lost), since you don't want *too* long if it happens that the link is short. (Been there, done that. :) Once you get the initial 'broad' issues sorted out and understand that packet loss != congestion, the above stack isn't that hard to build/design. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message