[e2e] Can we revive T/TCP ?

Michael Welzl michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at
Mon Mar 27 08:16:39 PST 2006

On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 17:59, Joe Touch wrote:
> Michael Welzl wrote:
> ...
> > But it seems to me that some things just can't be solved
> > on top, and so I started questioning the usefulness of
> > connection setup in authenticated environments.
> Security associations are different from transport connections. The
> former defines an identity and an agreement to accept
> authenticated/encrypted packets. The latter is for reliability,
> reordering, and congestion control.

I think "the usefulness of connection setup" was too vague,
or just misleading. What I meant was the usefulness of
waiting for the handshake before exchanging data as opposed
to a T/TCP like communication model

> Pipelining at over a single connection would, but you need a muxing and
> chunking mechanism. You can use:
> 	per-transaction TCP connections
> 	BXXP directly over TCP
> 	SOAP over HTTP over TCP
> You might want to compare the delays of each.

Yep, that sounds like the right approach to me - using one
connection that is kept throughout, with IPSec to make
sure that it's secure, and the UTO draft implemented in
case of TCP. Thanks!

> RPC over UDP. If you don't need the transport layer to manage state, use
> a stateless transport layer ;-)
> If you still want congestion control, RPC over DCCP ;-))

But any RPC code assumes reliable data delivery underneath?!


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list