Re: Urgent as Framing Hint?

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

Matt Wakeley wrote:
> I am glad I put the urgent pointer proposal out there, because others have
> pointed out how there may be problems with using it.  I still believe that
> *if* TCP implementations were implemented correctly, it would work to a
> degree.  You however, have insisted that it was a "modification to TCP", when
> in fact, it was never intended to be.
> 
Matt:

I am not sure what you mena by "work to a degree". I am quite sure
after looking at TCP and hearing feedback from David Reed, that in
ALL TCP implementations your idea will work a lot of the times. But
I am also just as sure that your idea will NOT work when faced with
a more than one packet loss.. 

If working with only single packet losses is what you had in mind
then I am sure it will "work to a degree" right now. The real
question is do you want a solution that will break under heavy
load with multiple packet losses?

I currently prefer the "magic sequence" proposal where you have
a special escape sequence you can look for inside the data stream.
I am not sure that this is managable for 10Gb data streams since
it will involve a lot of horse power to do it.. but so far it
is the only solution I can see that works reliably (if you have
enough CPU)...


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