begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:17:16PM -0800:
> Stewart Stremler wrote:
> >-Stewart "{TCP/UDP}/IP is not a *clean* system -- it just works" Stremler
>
> I disagree. TCP/IP is really pretty close to both minimal and clean
> given the problem it is solving (reliable transport across unreliable
> links). Anyone who starts out designing a protocol which is "simpler"
> than TCP eventually realizes that they wound up designing 90% of
> TCP--generally badly.
That's not quite how I meant it. By clean, I was trying to refer to
conceptual encapsulation -- the OSI model is clean, in that it's all
nicely layered and labelled... but it's TCP/IP that gets *used*.
The slightly messy abstractions in the IP protocols are more than made up
for by their practical simplicity.
> The fact that TCPv6 (which had pretty much a blank slate) does not throw
> out much of the fundamental architecture of TCPv4 shows that TCPv4 made
> pretty much the right decisions.
I think we're in violent agreement.
At least, I'm not at all interested in a pissing contest over _this_ topic.
-Stewart "Internyms are space constrained and not meant for serious co" Stremler
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
