On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:39:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
Sounds like a UDP replacement. If this is true, then OS-level support will be needed. If they are on this, then it's the perfect opportunity to fix some other problems with the Internet in general.
I'm no genius, but doesn't the article say it's UDP? (in the name of the protocol even)
I was trying to emphasize "replacement", not UDP. This is, that works on the same layer, that requires OS-level modifications, as opposed to a
again... not a super smart on this stuff, but.. why does it require OS modifications? isn't this just going be 'chrome' (or 'other application') asking for a udp socket and spewing line-rate-foo out of that? isn't the application going to be doing all of the multiplexing and jankiness?
protocol that could be similar to UDP but work on the application layer.
it's not 'similar to UDP', it is in fact UDP, from what I read in the article.
My point was that all that work could be focused on a *really* good transport (even with end-user multihoming without bloating the routing
how's that sctp going for you? lisp? sham6?
table), and have streamlined TCP and UDP that takes advantage of the new protocol.
sure, ilnp?
Everyone's calling upon SCTP. Implementing similar techniques on multiple transport protocols calls for a transport-session separation.
right, and the 1 application using sctp is so wide spread we've all heard of it even. possibly this will be a similar diversion into protocol/application testing even. -chris