Subject: Re: [tsvwg] : Q: transport recommendations for "routing protocols"

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:43:36 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] : Q: transport recommendations for "routing
protocols"
From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, January 29, 2016 5:43 pm
To: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

<snip>

I'd be happy too if the recommendation was SCTP Maybe better ? My 
requirements are so lame that i can't see how any of its improvements
would
make a difference. But i haven't gotten a good review if SCTP could be
more
lightweight even than TCP.

----------------

A single SCTP socket can be easier for the application than many TCP
sockets,
but the same amount of point-to-point maintenance/setup is still
required for each
end-node pair once you use reliable connections.

The real issue of UDP vs reliable is whether maintaining the
connection/association
makes sense for the application.

There are many advantages of SCTP over TCP that SHOULD get it to be used
more
widely. But any higher layer protocol requiring reliable transport
should just state what
*messages* it needs to transmit and not care which reliable transport is
used.

relay reliably