Re: Drafting mux WG charter

From: Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk)
Date: Tue, Feb 16 1999


Message-ID: <36C9E7EB.75E39B4B@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:49:31 +0000
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
To: spreitze@parc.xerox.com
CC: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Ted Hardie <hardie@equinix.com>, Mark Day <mark_day@lotus.com>, Rohit Khare <rohit@uci.edu>, ietf-http-ng@w3.org, Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>, Lance Olson <lanceo@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Drafting mux WG charter

spreitze@parc.xerox.com wrote:
> 
> > My personal interest in MUXing is to re-use a single TCP connection to some
> > MUX port as a mechanism to simulate arbitrary TCP connections to arbitrary
> > ports.
> 
> OK, does anybody else share this interest?

Dunno, but I have a concern. Firewalls rely on knowing where traffic is
going. A MUXed protocol is likely to require inspection of every byte to
do this, or at least, reconstruction of the stream, if it is to be
noticably different from using multiple connections. This will make
firewalling almost impossible in hardware, and resource-intensive in all
circumstances. In turn, this means that it is likely to be banned from
most applications, which means that doing it is a waste of time.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi