Re: [Spud] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 5/20/2016 11:24 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/19/2016 6:24 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:06:11PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> I don't disagree with the potential benefits. I disagree with using UDP
>>>> encapsulation to achieve an end-run around the OS exerting control.
>>> Don't think of it as UDP. Think of it as creating multiple layers inside the current
>>> transport layer. The lowest layer is demultiplexing. Architecturally very clean.
>> Here's why it's not:
>>
>> TCP isn't a layer by itself; it relies on the IP pseudoheader.
>>
>> TCP in UDP in IP is architecturally incomplete.
>>
>> TCP in IP in UDP in IP would be fine, as would TCP in IP in IP. But we
>> already have those.
>>
>> That's why we don't need this and why it's a mess.
>>
> If it's more palatable we can accurately call this a new application
> layer protocol that implements reliability and congestion control
> instead of phrasing it encapsulation of TCP over UDP.

You're trying very hard to find a nail for this hammer.

Instead, you might consider DCCP or SCTP.

If you need to tunnel those to transit a NAT, we already have support
for that with other tunnel mechanisms.

There is no clear rationale for needing this solution except to overcome
OS implementation issues.

Again, that is my position and I've made it fairly clear at this point.
I'd like to see how others feel.

Joe