From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 4 17:53:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6ED716A4CE; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:53:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.net (custpop.ca.mci.com [142.77.1.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E6643D45; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:53:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kfl@xiphos.ca) Received: from [216.95.199.148] (account kfl@xiphos.ca HELO [192.168.1.7]) by mail.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 26293856; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:53:13 -0500 Message-ID: <418A6FDC.5010204@xiphos.ca> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:07:24 -0500 From: Karim Fodil-Lemelin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mallman@icir.org References: <20041022182430.31A2B1EF3BF@lawyers.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20041022182430.31A2B1EF3BF@lawyers.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: Andre Oppermann cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:53:16 -0000 Hi, I am jumping in here, was too busy to read the list for the last 2 weeks, so please excuse my intrusion. We are using T/TCP in our product line and are very happy with the performance gain. Could you tell me what is the rational for removing T/TCP (security/performances/code complexity, etc ..) from FreeBSD? Again, sorry for being a bit off topic here. Mark Allman wrote: >>A T/TCP alternative as you are describing sounds very >>similar to PR-SCTP (Partial Reliability SCTP). (Don't let the >>name fool you, please read the internet draft). >> >> > >Can you sketch this in a bit more detail? I do not follow. PR-SCTP is >about being allowed to "abandon" data --- i.e., send it and then decide >that you don't really care if it gets across the network (say, because >it got lost and has taken too long to retransmit and so the data is out >of date). Without a Big Hack, I cannot envision TCP doing something >like this. What am I missing? > >Thanks, >allman > > >-- >Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ > > > > > -- Karim Fodil-Lemelin Lead Programmer Xiphos Technologies Inc. www.xiplink.com