Subject: RE: [rddp] Optimized Processing not necessarily Hardware Optimize d

From: "Larsen, Roy K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:12:55 -0700

That leaves open my question as to why this group would want to spend time
implementing RDMAP on top of a protocol that folks seem to believe no longer
supplies the quality of service its designers intended.  Doesn't that put us
into the surrogate TCP-2 definition space?

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:49 PM
To: Larsen, Roy K
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [rddp] Optimized Processing not necessarily Hardware
Optimize d

On 4/11/03, Larsen, Roy K wrote:

>Pardon my naiveté, but should I conclude from this CRC
>thread that it is generally accepted within the IETF
>community that TCP is no longer considered a reliable
>protocol and it (as well as all applications that depend
>on its reliability) will become increasingly irrelevant as
>network speeds increase?  If so, why would we want to
>spend any time integrating RDMA with an obsolete protocol?
> If the tsvwg wants to keep TCP relevant, shouldn't they
>be the group addressing data integrity?

That solution would be called SCTP, which has a CRC-32c.

I see no need to define "TCP-2" when it would merely
be a single-streamed single-homed subset of SCTP.

Caitlin Bestler
http://asomi.com/CaitlinBestler/
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp