*> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Feb 6 20:18:29 2001 *> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ *> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *> To: "Jun'an Gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *> Subject: Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) *> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:46:02 -0500 *> X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *> *> I think it would be very difficult to replace TCP. However, a new *> transport protocol that worked better than TCP in very high bandwidth / *> low delay conditions might be very attractive for hosts and applications *> that were able to take advantage of it. *> Keith, As I am sure you recall, the IETF held a BOF on "TCPng" some years ago. It went over exactly the same ground tilled Mr. Gao. The BOF's conclusion was that any gains would be marginal and would not justify the trauma of change. Bob Braden
- 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
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Colin Perkins
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Harald Alvestrand
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Jun'an Gao
- RE: An alternative to TCP (part 1) aaron
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Richard Carlson
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) John Stracke
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Bob Braden
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Keith Moore
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Mark Allman
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Kevin Farley
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) John Stracke
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Mahadevan Iyer
- Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1) Richard Carlson
- 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
