Larry Foore wrote: > Is this really a problem? How often would a single TCP session have > allocated to itself an entire gigabit link? I'm not aware of any end > systems or apps that generate data at this rate (especially for any extended > length of time), much less accept it. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Just over too short a time window. 15 years ago the same was said for 2Mbps rates when people started thinking about moving up to a whopping 45. Think 10 years out and the question becomes 'who would be willing to settle for as little as 1Gbps per connect?' Tony
- An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) John Stracke
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) stanislav shalunov
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Randall R. Stewart
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Fred Baker
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Christian Huitema
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Larry Foore
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Tony Hain
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Bernard Aboba
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) stanislav shalunov
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Larry Foore
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Keith Moore
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jon Crowcroft
