Subject: Re: [NSIS] layer split summary? opinions?

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:57:18 GMT

Lixia,

PS: When BGP was being developed some 15 years ago, I and several other
IAB members fought against Yakov's decision to use TCP.  I don't really
remember the details, but I think we probably introduced all the
arguments you are now using against signaling over TCP.  Besides all
the technical arguments, using TCP was just plain IMMORAL!

From your description of BGP's problems, it appears that the BGP
designers were somewhat short-sighted, shall we say, about the details,
if they automatically assume that loss of the TCP connection implies
loss of all state.  However, the success of BGP using TCP over the
intervening 15 years has tended to persuade me that I was wrong and
Yakov was right.  In any case, we need to re-examine the question very
carefully.

Bob

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:21:38 -0500

Interesting design point. I'm curious if there is the opposite regret: 
"I only wish we had used UDP (or raw IP) instead of TCP (or some other 
suitable reliable transport)".

Btw, RADIUS and DIAMETER may well offer additional lessons, given that 
they also made the transition from UDP (RADIUS) to TCP/SCTP (DIAMETER). 
I haven't followed that debate closely enough to distill the lessons.

DNS may offer another lesson. It's obviously the most important user of 
UDP today, but aren't there discussions about stronger TCP support once 
secure DNS becomes more prevalent?

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:36:01 -0800

> However, the success of BGP using TCP over the

(I told John that I had to get my day job done and stop here, but one more
msg)

Just to clarify: We have witnessed the success of the Internet over the last
15 years.

I agree completely with very careful re-examination.

Lixia