- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:11:41 -0700
- To: Mark Stemm <stemm@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
- Cc: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>, koen@win.tue.nl, ZhouKang@cheerful.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Clearly a good thing... Congestion and loss recovery should clearly be done on a host pair basis, and that existing TCPs don't is clearly wrong... There are still several other things I suspect that SMUX does that your modified TCP does not (I couldn't access your web site this instant; got a DNS lookup failure on the site for your paper): SMUX can pack more than one fragment into a single packet. As there are quite a few web objects (and HTTP protocol requests) that are quite small, this saves quite a few packets. It also serves as a record marking protocol, which can be useful in many applications. And it can be deployed alot faster than getting everyone to agree on fixing their TCPs (which should be done in any case). So I don't think this is one or the other; I'd certainly like to see a better TCP (particularly one that didn't throw away data after a reset; this causes us more than a little pain!). - Jim
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 12:21:45 UTC