Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 01:48 UTC
Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuehc-00062W-7x; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:48:32 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iueha-0005nj-BA for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:48:30 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iueha-0005ld-0Y for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:48:30 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuehV-0003ad-UD for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:48:29 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2007 17:48:25 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAL1mPjx005521 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:48:25 -0800
Received: from [171.69.75.93] (dhcp-171-69-75-93.cisco.com [171.69.75.93]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAL1mPGc000826 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:48:25 GMT
Message-ID: <47438E69.5060701@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:48:25 -0800
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
References: <299249.88905.qm@web31703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20071120121238.740442F6E0C@lawyers.icir.org> <200711202201.WAA05926@cisco.com> <47437551.7020205@isi.edu> <20071121004427.GI26548@cisco.com> <20071121011105.GQ5881@elb.elitists.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071121011105.GQ5881@elb.elitists.net>
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6315; t=1195609705; x=1196473705; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mahesh@cisco.com; z=From:=20Mahesh=20Jethanandani=20<mahesh@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem? |Sender:=20; bh=Mit0CI6qqyC0XmCw0TDRasN5XvuxuwSi14hOy3qdJEk=; b=ongyQ9/t+RCzooY7TjgYRo8yzud0Ka1i1KwIx+0H2kFJxsFoL3ZWQ3kM7mxE8TSdjUL5TYhu qTPOzqxgWXxdPje05yqVjivHjuaSDEtwIWJlaH6E/484lUijZg/meWOs;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=mahesh@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 42e3ed3f10a1d8bef690f09da16f507a
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1164088386=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Ethan Blanton wrote: >> And I think the authors are positioning that there is a better place >> in the architecture to solve this and that is in tcp. I think it is >> boiling down to just a matter of opinions so far.. esp when you keep >> repeating that it could be solved in the app layer (for as long as I >> recall!!) >> > > Joe keeps making this point because it is _very important_. Any > feature which can be accomplished at Layer N can be accomplished at > Layer N - 1, and vice-versa. However, the Internet protocols have > enjoyed tremendous success and longevity in part because they resist > the urge to push application and other high-layer semantics into the > lower layers. > But in case of congestion control it was felt that it would be done better in TCP. Why? After all nothing stopped applications from implementing congestion control. > >>> Useful is a fine metric for a new protocol, not for mucking with such a >>> ubiquitous and established one unnecessarily, IMO. >>> >> I do not understand that line of reasoning at all.. I think the point >> was that it could be useful to tcp.. not to some new protocol. I think >> the discussion has to be around that point only.. last I checked this >> was the tcp m mailing list. >> > > "Unnecessarily" is an important word in that statement, which you did > not address. The question has never been "can this be done in TCP", > it is rather, "should this be done in TCP?" > > For my own part, I have not yet seen a reason why application layer > timeouts are not a reasonable solution to this problem, or even the > _correct_ solution to this problem, because only the application knows > how much progress is "sufficient" progress, and as such I cannot see > driving this feature into the TCP _standards_. I also, however, see > no reason why some particular TCP stack could not provide a socket > tunable for persist timeout, if sufficient userspace demand were > present. > We give reasons as to why a timeout in application will not work. For one, a fixed timeout is easy to defeat. If you are not proposing a fixed timeout, what kind of timeout are you proposing? Is it going to be based on that applications view of how many buffers it is holding on to? What if that application is not the problem, but some other application is? What if the other application does not even bother about connections in persist condition. The problem is also that the resources in question are TCP resources and applications have a snapshot of the problem from their connection point of view. They do not see the problem that TCP is seeing.
_______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Florian Weimer
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? speakeasy
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Jakob Heitz
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Summary of responses so far and proposal moving f… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Tom Petch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… weddy
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Erik Nordmark