Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Thu, 13 February 2014 16:37 UTC
Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9421A033B; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:37:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSuuPb7_hXyi; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFB41A0371; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s1DGaPqc007592; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:36:26 +0100
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, tcmtf@ietf.org
References: <007101cf226a$8d4ff8e0$a7efeaa0$@unizar.es> <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D40AAA4584C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D40AAA4584C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:36:28 +0100
Message-ID: <002201cf28d9$bee7cbb0$3cb76310$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01CF28E2.20ADBA50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-language: es
Thread-index: AQI6CeT4IDFaGdsww7592SxpMtbs7AJ9QgoCmcm0iDA=
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:37:36 -0000
Phil, Thanks for the ideas. With the migration problem, do you mean that a TCM-TF tunnel including a number of flows could be useful for connecting two domains using different protocols? Thanks for the link to RFC5218. It contains good tips of advice. Jose PS: Regarding SCTP, DCCP, TCP, UDP, etc., a BoF proposing an API that would automatically select the best one for an application is being held in London (Transport Services) https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/ De: tcmtf [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de philip.eardley@bt.com Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 11:59 Para: jsaldana@unizar.es; tcmtf@ietf.org CC: tsv-area@ietf.org Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments << Conjointly, transport protocols such as SCTP, DCCP, MPTCP, UDP-Lite and the LEDBAT congestion control mechanism offer a large number of services to applications in addition to the long-standing two services provided by TCP and UDP. For an application programmer, using protocols other than TCP or UDP is hard>> One thing I think would be useful is to analyse this as a migration problem. I know lots of people have thought about why migration is hard. My take is that the crucial issues are to make sure there is incremental benefit (the party migrating gets a benefit now and not when everyone else has migrated) and to try and ensure migration can be one party at a time (so others dont have to care party is most obviously one end host, but in some circumstances can be eg Apple iOS). Theres some quite nice stuff in RFC5218. Best wishes Phil From: tsv-area [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana Sent: 05 February 2014 12:05 To: tcmtf@ietf.org Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org Subject: BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments Hi all, In order to prepare the BoF in London, I have tried to summarize the questions that have been discussed, in order to include the improvements in the charter and in the two drafts. On behalf of clarity, I will send different messages with the solutions for each problem. If you think there are other problems, please start a new thread. Problems discussed in the BoF: 1) TCP multiplexing and effect on TCP dynamics. (I think this was the main problem). 2) Path MTU discovery issues 3) Are we adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth? 4) Do vendors want standards in this space? Problems discussed in the list: 5) Why is ROHC not a solution? Jose
- [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF a… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-… philip.eardley
- Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-… Jose Saldana