Re: [multipathtcp] Time for Long Options?

[Alexander Zimmermann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

Am 29.07.2010 um 17:42 schrieb Mark Handley:

> I've also been wondering about the "extended option" option.  For example:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kohler-tcpm-extopt-00
> 
> It seems like it might be good to define this now, even though we know
> we can't effectively use it for a long time (many years at least).
> The issue is of course middleboxes that might not understand, and
> parse extended options as payload.  But as a long-term exercise, it
> does seem like the right thing to do.

I fully agree. And it is also better to cook a solution within a WG
than outside => http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-simpson-tcpct-03.txt

> 
> - Mark
> 
> On 29 July 2010 16:19, Alexander Zimmermann
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> since we decided today to put the signaling stuff into the
>> options (good decision), I wonder if it's the right time now
>> to extend the option field.
>> 
>> Remember, Linux for example use Timestamps and SACK per
>> default, so that no space is free (without loosing SACK
>> blocks)...
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> //
>> // Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann
>> // Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4
>> // RWTH Aachen University
>> // Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany
>> // phone: [phone], fax: [phone]
>> // email: [e-mail]
>> // web: http://www.umic-mesh.net
>> //
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> multipathtcp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>> 
>>