Re: [6lowapp] Where does TCP not work

[Jonathan Hui <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:

> It's definitely debatable whether the approach that we've so far  
> followed (making links and lower-layer network technologies  
> implement stuff so that TCP/IP runs OK) is the One True Answer.

Yes.

> As we expand IP into environments that are very different from the  
> "normal" Internet, it's not fully clear (to me at least) whether  
> this approach will continue to be efficient. At the bar BOF in  
> Stockholm, I made a strawman proposal that for 6LOWAPPs, we might  
> instead start thinking about giving up on TCP and implementing a set  
> of end-to-end transport functions that apps can pick & choose from,  
> depending on their needs (reliability, uni/multicast, error  
> protection, loss protection/FEC, flow control, etc.) Those functions  
> may not need to be provided by a separate protocol with a header and  
> a layer in the stack; we might make them available as a common  
> library that apps link against, for example.

Certainly sounds like an interesting idea and it would be a breath of  
fresh air not to be encumbered by TCP.  So can we afford to sacrifice  
interoperability with TCP-based tools/infrastructure?  There are  
clearly people on both sides and it's not clear to me how to come to  
closure except to recognize both sides for the time being.

--
Jonathan Hui