North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: multi-homing fixes
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Joel Baker wrote: [SCTP] > Me, I prefer to build a new car that's fully up to new design specs, rather > than try to retrofit rocket boosters onto the old Studebaker. This isn't to > claim, in any way, that "TCP is dead", mind you; but SCTP answers a fairly > fundamental set of problems, with a different set of design goals than TCP > and UDP were written for. Trying to mangle TCP to accomodate those goals > seems likely to produce more confusion than viable code. SCTP is a protocol designed to carry telephony signalling. Being able to use multiple IP addresses per session is not something that is inherently more appropriate for telephony signalling than for network applications that use stream-based communication. It is a nice option to have for any transport protocol. So unless there is _another_ reason why SCTP is appropriate for a certain application, it seems pretty clear to me that using TCP, which was designed to work with the protocols we use on the Net, and is the transport protocol applications expect, is much more appropriate. Extending TCP to use multiple IP addresses is not a problem. TCP has been extended in many ways in the past. And an experimental implementation has been available for four years. > As for the 'SCTP isn't backwards compatible with older TCP' > claim... uhm, TCP isn't backwards compatible with UDP, either. Your point? But nobody is proposing to have applications built for UDP run over TCP. I'm not against implementing new protocols that aren't backward compatible, but I'm merely saying that in this case the benefits are too small. And comparing this to IPv6: how many people are using IPv6 today? Sometimes it is necessary to forego backward compatibility, but that decission should never be taken lightly.