RF flag
Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Tue, 05 December 1989 21:53 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA22898; Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:53:30 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA04225; Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:53:24 -0800
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01227;
Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:53:19 PDT
Date: 5 Dec 1989 13:17-PST
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: RF flag
To: mtudwg
Message-Id: <89/12/05 1317.877@pescadero.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: jnc's message of Sun, 3 Dec 89 220141 EST
I don't have time at the moment to respond to all the good suggestions that are being bounced around, but I'd just like to say that, from my point of view, use of the spare IP header flag as an RF flag is *not* yet out of the question, despite Noel's attempt to pull rank on us. In other words, my answer to Noel's comment: I hope nobody's too bummed at me for the cold water on the fragmentation bit. It's just that we do only have bit, and Congestion is really a big problem... is yes, I'm bummed (but maybe not *too* bummed). It is understood that Congestion is a Really Big Problem, but it is far from agreed that the DEC bit is the solution. Jacobson's approach of discarding packets as a congestion "signal" has the advantages of (a) immediately reducing the number of packets in the network, and (b) working with existing host implementations. Sure there's only one spare bit and we don't want to squander it, but unless you are saying it can *never* be used, I think we should be able to weigh the needs and benefits of any competing proposals and pick one accordingly. By "we", I guess I mean the IESG, since it's a trans-working-group issue. More than just Noel, in any case. Respectfully yours, Steve
- RF flag Steve Deering
- Re: RF flag art
- Re: RF flag Steve Deering
- Re: RF flag Noel Chiappa
- Re: RF flag Noel Chiappa
- Re: RF flag Steve Deering