Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think we are getting caught in disputes over vocabulary. Two things
> are true at the same time:
> 
> 1) We cannot send packets in which the IP protocol or IPv6 payload type
> is set to a different value than TCP or UDP and expect them to reach
> destinations across the Internet.

   We certainly _can_ send different payload types.

   We _can_ design protocols which check whether those payload types are
received.

   There are other approaches which _today_ seem much more practical.

> 2) QUIC, BitTorrent and SCTP demonstrate that you can run a protocol on
> top of UDP that has all the characteristics of a classic transport
> protocol, including error recovery and congestion control. ( QUIC can
> perform mux/demux by itself, using the "connection ID" field, but most
> deployments refrain from using multiple layers of multiplexing.)

   Absolutely true!

> Using UDP causes 8 bytes of overhead per packet, which is unfortunate.

   True. We chose the wrong size limits 25 years ago. Next time I hope
we'll know better. (25 years ago, 8 bytes of overhead was significant
by itself.)

> You may call that a middle-box tax if you want. But as long as you are
> willing to pay that tax, you can of course deploy new transmission
> control protocols over the Internet. Most people will call them
> transport protocols.

   Actually, what we call them _does_ make a real difference. I'd be happy
to call them "transport protocols"...

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>