19 Mar 1986 04:28-PST
I would be very hesitant to put a lot of traffic on "uncontrolled" datagrams.
The term "uncontrolled" meant just that. No flow/congestion control; except
to discard a type 3 datagram if you had nothing else to do with it. When we
ran packetized voice tests on the ARPANET using the current type 3
datagrams, we interfered pretty severely with network performance.
I don't know how far the new end/end would go towards making this any better.
Andy Malis at BBN would be a good person to ask. My assumption for the moment
is that they have reduced the need for RFNM-like behavior (not to zero,
you still need acks on an end/end basis, but not one per packet) but this does
not put control onto the type 3 packets, as far as I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:04 GMT