[e2e] a new IRTF group on Transport Models

Cannara cannara at attglobal.net
Mon Jun 13 13:13:02 PDT 2005

Bob, I outlined specific, general steps to take last week.  Did you not see
that?  Over the last few years, I outlined specific additions to current TCP
to, for instance, allow it to make fewer mistakes about why packets may be
delayed, missing or repeated unnecessarily.  These suggestions were meant to
allow anyone to conduct a research project without making large modifications
to existing protocol stacks.  I also listed default stack settings that are
often problematic, which speaks to the need for release control.  If you've
been on this list regularly, you should know what those issues are.  If you've
forgotten, I'll try to resurrect the emails.

But, the biggest TCP/IP issue is why your email here, today, came snadwiched
between: "Can You Last 36 Hours", or "Burn Any Movie onto DVD", yadda, yadda. 
That's called admission control, and is wholly thwarted by the still-inane IP
addressing system and the lack of uniqueness of names as well as addresses. 
If you want to start somewhere to improve TCP and other performance, then you
need to start at the beginning -- packets entering the net.  If you don't,
then diddling with TCP (or any other) is mouse nuts (to use an old 3Com
adjective :).


Bob Braden wrote:
>   *>    version=2.64
>   *>
>   *> Bob, as you and anyone can tell from the archives on this list, I and others
>   *> have made positive suggestions for specific changes to both TCP and IP to
>   *> improve matters.
> Alex,
> I am not concerned about others.  I am sorry, I must have missed your
> "positive suggestions for specific changes to both TCP and IP to improve
> matters".  Would you mind briefly summarizing them for the others on
> this list?
> Thank you.
> Bob Braden

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list