IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-sno-00.txt

Rui Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rpaulo@apple.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2BE21E8189 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPAhJ3TZ3AJ9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C584611E80F2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay6.apple.com ([17.128.113.90]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MSV001AXGNGV3A0@mail-out.apple.com> for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1180715a-b7f8e6d000006c98-9a-522e1a11a97e
Received: from sesame.apple.com (sesame.apple.com [17.128.115.128]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay6.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 51.F0.27800.11A1E225; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rui-macbook-pro.apple.com (rui-macbook-pro.apple.com [17.193.13.39]) by sesame.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0MSV00424GNK4M80@sesame.apple.com> for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <5227D184.5010100@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:57:17 -0700
Message-id: <CA35489B-009C-4C58-8D00-A5F34AAF7144@apple.com>
References: <20130905002953.31686.90142.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5227D184.5010100@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1809)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDcoCsopRdkMOezpMW2k/OZHBg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV8XllWcFHtorpR04yNzDuYe1i5OSQEDCRuLj1LiOELSZx4d56 ti5GLg4hgT4miXcL/jFCODuYJGaf28QGUsUsoCWxfudxJhCbV0BP4nHjVLBJwgI+EssvXwWr YRNQknjWd4K9i5GDg1NAXWLhpgiQMIuAqsTa/rXsEGOUJdpvXYUaqS3x5N0FVoiRNhK9HbtY QVqFBOIkLn3VBAmLCMhKPPjzhh3iTlmJHfuXME1gFJiF5KBZSA6ahWTqAkbmVYwCRak5iZVm eokFBTmpesn5uZsYwUFXGLWDsWG51SFGAQ5GJR7egGO6QUKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeDcw6wUJ 8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES570gpxUkJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYJxTxM3wKXDq mlP1u2weWvwXPafcZXzZNeBdvue5Jf7rZve8Wzxlcc2MuA5fMd+Hc7XbWlbU7Ly2XemT74wq nsjnkziS9CY8UJ3f0VH989tks6f/88Pv7AvpZQsy+M6/tW/B/bgT11e6n7quKmG107kgcct2 PfPi6I+d0z1T/t1cZbRZ2TtpnY8SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAfMIJTNgIAAA==
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-sno-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:57:34 -0000

On 4 Sep 2013, at 17:34, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> Regarding the recent discussion on TCPMUX, we've revived some of our earlier work on portnames, focusing on just the ability to decouple the service identifier from the SYN destination port.
> 
> We have both Linux and FreeBSD implementations underway. A revised draft has just been submitted with the details, below.
> 
> I'm hoping to publish this as an independent submission, but if there's interest in running it through TCPM please let me know.

>From a quick read, I only see one use case mentioned: proxy servers. Are there others?
Changing the TCP stacks of these endpoints just to accommodate a bigger number of connections seems like the wrong approach when you can rework the network architecture and add more proxy servers.

--
Rui Paulo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email