Re: Urgent as Framing Hint?

["Randall R. Stewart" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us>]

julian_satran@il.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Doug - you are (again) quoting snippets out-of-context and misrepresenting
> the discussions in IPS.
> The main reason SCTP is not yet considered is maturity. Nobody is going to
> "bet-its-bussiness" on it
> for the next 2 years and there where no compelling reasons to go for this
> route (for a while).  TCP is simple and good and IPS has no mandate and no
> intentions to ask for changes.   However many of us don't see TCP as dead
> as Latin and
> are convinced that new applications and network technology will "induce"
> changes (even if slow like in any mature area).
> 
> Julo
Julian:

I do have one question for you, your statement above

"are convinced that new applications and network technology will
"induce"
 changes"

implies to me that you want TCP to change. This in and of itself is
not necessarily a bad thing... but, if you make substantial changes
to TCP for say iSCSI do you not run in to the same maturity/deployment
issues of these "new changed TCP" that you hit with SCTP. You have
the same question then, are you willing to "bet your business" on 
rolling out new and so far undefined changes to TCP?

Defining any extensions or changes to TCP will, I would think take
at least 6 months to 1 year. Then you have the adoption period
to deploy said changes into all of your O/S vendors etc.. .the very
issues you have with SCTP will then arise with the "new improved" TCP.

... just food for thought...

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
randall@stewart.chicago.il.us or rrs@cisco.com
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)