Re: shim-aware transports

[Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Well, I'm sorry to have to say it, but that's just STUPID.

I'd have thought "wise", but hey.

> What if I have a 119 MB/s gigabit ethernet link and a 1 kB/s GSM 
> data connection, and I'm downloading a nice big file with my fully 
> RFC 1323-compliant IP stack, and then the gigabit link goes down so 
> I rehome to the GSM link.

Jammer[1].

We're not here to solve problems in transport protocols. Even if try 
accomodate shortcomings in certain protocols by introducing 
additional interactions, what happen when those shortcomings are 
fixed (in that protocol or by a superceding one?) - you're left with 
a then redundant set of interactions. Interactions which make for 
(redundant) implementation difficulty.

Further, you have to accomodate all transports. Many of which have 
quite different expectations and information.

> Suppose the file is coming from 100 ms away, so my window is 12 MB 
> or so. That means that worst case, my GSM link could be saturated 
> for more than THREE HOURS because of that single window worth of 
> data that's in flight.

Jammer :).

But the receiver can close the window, can't it?

> This "complexity is scary" belief in IETF is getting ridiculous and then 
> some. (While at the same time you need to read some 20 RFCs to implement 
> SNMPv3. Good thing they never went for a "complex network management 
> protocol".)

Complexity /is/ scary.

It raises the bar to understanding, hence introduces additional 
potential for protocol 'bugs' to be overlooked. It raises the bar for 
implemention, in prototyping, debugging, etc.

Make things as complex as they /need/ to be, no more.

1. roughly translated: tough luck

regards,
--
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Politics makes strange bedfellows, and journalism makes strange politics.
		-- Amy Gorin