Subject: Why not TCPng?

From: "zhang hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:13:38 +0800

Hello!
    I'm studying IPv6 and there is a question haunting around me. IPv6 is
created to solve the deficiency of IPv4. While AFAIK, there are also some
shortage in current TCP/UDP which is the upper layer of IP. But I only see
the IPng, why no one touch TCPng or UDPng? There must be some reason for it
which I don't know. Can some one kindly enough to tell me why?
   Forgive me my ignorant. : )

Best regards
Zhang Hong

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: ryan elson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:28:32 -0500

Forgive me my ignorant?  Is that a question?

---

From: Glenn Tapley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:39:48 -0500

Ryan,

You arrogant putz!  How dare you be so rude?  I have read your rants
without comment or criticism for all this time, but this reply of yours
was unforgivably rude!  I can only assume from the maturity of your
messages that you are no older than 12.  Even teenagers have more class
than you.

Could you respond to Zhang in Mandarin?  Would your use of that language
be so fluent that it would pass the inspection of some tiny minded cretin
lurking on the list?

 From this point forward any and all messages with your name in any header
will go directly to my trash folder to be automatically deleted.  I have
already done the same for any and all messages with Jim Fleming.  You are
beneath contempt and not worth the bandwidth for your messages.

gpt

> >    Forgive me my ignorant. : )

Glenn Tapley, CCNP-Voice, CCDP          [email-masked]
Certified Cisco Systems Instructor     Yahoo!: CiscoGlenn
Technical Education Consultant         Fone: 407.695.2327
Internet Learning Solutions Group      eFax: 781.846.8516
Cisco Systems, Inc.                  http://www.cisco.com

    Purgamentum init - exit purgamentum!

      "One day, training for every job on Earth will
       be available on the Internet.  Are you ready?"
             http://www.cisco.com/go/elearning/

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:54:25 -0800

I have seen all of the various ranting and raving that your request
causes... I would rather turn your question back on itself...

You state that "While AFAIK, there are also some shortage in current TCP/UDP
which is the upper layer of IP".  Can I ask you what these shortages are,
how they are affecting your applications, and how you would solve the
problems ?

If you can answer that question you are well on the path of creating a TCPng
WG, until you have those questions answered, you are asking an impossible
question.  Nothing is perfect, everything is a tradeoff.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of zhang hong
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Why not TCPng?

Hello!

Best regards
Zhang Hong

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:30:31 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "zhang hong" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Why not TCPng?

>    Forgive me my ignorant. : )

TCP and UDP may not be as large a problem as protocols above those in the stack,
such as FTP which has direct 32-bit IP address and 16-bit port knowledge.

As for why IPv6.?...IPv6 was created by people with many agendas. In one case,
it appears that some of the people wanted to make sure that ATM breaks.
The size of the IPv6 header was selected to make the use of ATM inefficient.
IPv6 advocates refer to ATM as "Another Terrible Mistake". Apparently the
engineers wanted to attempt to derail the ATM market. I guess they were
railroad engineers, not Internet engineers.

It is somewhat ironic that IPv6 people would advocate that a fixed size header
makes for efficient hardware processing. That is exactly why ATM designers
opted for the small, fixed-size, ATM cell size. IPv4, IPv5, IPv7, IPv8 and IPv16
are of course better matched to the ATM cell size, with the 20 byte headers,
and the ability to put 2 headers inside of a 48-byte ATM payload, and still have
room for some data.

Jim Fleming
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

---

From: "zhang hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:28:49 +0800

I'm really sorry for causing these trouble from my foolish question.
Please forgive me since I'm a student and a beginner in IPv6 area.
:

BTW, let's finish this topic, OK?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 10:01:20 +0100

Zhang Hong,

My own answers are

a) the IETF has a whole area devoted to transport issues, and it is
very active. See 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Transport_Area

b) I'm surprised nobody has mentioned SCTP; after all it is a brand-new
IETF transport protocol. See RFC 2960.

c) There have been many minor upgrades to TCP in the last 5 years, in various
RFCs. 

d) Not sure what problems there are in UDP itself. 

    Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ben Clifford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 03:12:32 +0000 (UCT)

> which I don't know. Can some one kindly enough to tell me why?

This doesn't really answer your question, but it is a bit related.

The routers in the internet speak IP (IPv4 now, eventaully IPv6). They
don't need to know about TCP or UDP or other protocols that sit on top of
them [1].

So in order to upgrade the internet to IPv6, every router on the internet
needs to learn to speak IPv6.

If I wanted to run a new TCP protocol (running over IPv4 or IPv6), the
routers in between me and whoever I want to speak to don't need to know
about it - it's an issue between me and the web-servers that I visit, or
me and the mail-servers I send to.

So deployment of a new TCP would happen in a very different way - for
example, there would be no need for a 6bone-style network with all of the
associated tunnel configuration, additional address allocation procedures
etc.

[1] In fact, they usually do for exchanging routing information, but do
not need to do so in order to actually route packets.

-- 
Ben Clifford  [email-masked]  http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/
Currently seeking employment in Los Angeles: http://www.hawaga.org.uk/resume/
IPv6 only webserver at: http://edge.ipv6.hawaga.org.uk:81/ben/