Re: Urgent as Framing Hint?

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

I am not envisioning any changes for iSCSI or at least not for the near
future.
There are things that bother many of us and with regards to several
protocols in which the TCP has
to do something to ease the end-node loads at high speed and I suppose they
will be accepted in a
reasonable time-frame (I don't know yet what they are though nor what the
time-frame will be).
The changes will be I assume tiny and will be deployed gradually over
several years and with luck and good design will not
break too many things.

SCTP is dazzling but it is too young for us to know what it's weaknesses
are.   I have no clue how light or heavy its
implementation is or where to find a silicon producer willing to use it in
a widely deployed are like storage interconnects
(I guess you are not better off than me). People that wanted it badly for
SS7 on IP have not the same type of requirements as storage producers.

Julo

"Randall R. Stewart" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us> on 29/11/2000 18:18:00

Please respond to "Randall R. Stewart" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>, David.Eckhardt@cs.cmu.edu,
      end2end-interest@ISI.EDU, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: Urgent as Framing Hint?




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)