Re: ISO8473 vs. IP


Marty Schoffstall (schoff@nic.nyser.net)
Wed, 09 Sep 87 07:02:38 -0400


    The "congestion experienced" bit has to be a good idea, since it has been
    suggested repeatedly by Jack Haverty (name one) and several others at BBN
    for darn near ten years. So, let's do it. We need to swipe a bit from the
    IP header. Any suggestions on which one? That bit decided, give me ten
    seconds and the fuzzballs will concur in the madness...

Dave, I don't know how to take the above message. I don't believe I have
a fully-formed opinion on this due to the fact that I have
not seen the DEC "paper" however
I have some philosophical questions about this in the ISO stack:

        Isn't this mechanism a bit indirect? Does anyone have some
                thoughts about latency in a live ISO INTERNET?.
                Your transmitter is hosing the net, Mr. Gateway
                (whoops IS), 4 PDN's away determines there is
                congestion toggles the bit and we arrive at
                the receiver. The receiver then takes this
                Layer3 information exports it to the Layer4
                machine who does something bright with it
                like communicating with the transmitter Layer4.
                [ My recollection of this is that Layer4 had
                        to be TP4, ie this wasn't going to
                        be effective for other transports.]

This mechanism seems right for at least experimental use in the DOD INTERNET,
a small alteration of a mature operational protocol. However, it looks
like a hack in the ISO stack if the ISO stack is supposed to have been
an improvement on what we've learned in the last 10 years....

Dave, how do you feel this should affect the TCP if implemented in the
DOD stack?

Marty



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:15 GMT