On 11/18/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then what do you have after you remove the TCP headers at your > > destination? NOTHING? Just because a protocol doesn't know the > > internals of another protocol doesn't mean it would do anything about > > it. > > You seem to think headers are the only things in packets. After you > remove a header you still have the payload. >
right....I think I may have read your statement backwards and thought you were stripping that info out before it could be used......Sorry. > > BTW encapsulation and naive protocols are quite passe. > > Tell that to all OOP programmers in the world. They are all > striving for encapsulation by using objects. > That has nothing to do with network protocol design. Makes sense for programming clearly. > > The most > > optimized performance comes from smart implementations that break just > > that rule. > > I agree 100%. Sure you can *implement* something with optimizations > that break encapsulation > but the TCP/IP specs strive for simplicity with encapsulation. > http://nms.csail.mit.edu/6829-papers/alf.pdf is the paper I was referencing. We've been using these ideals as core tenents in designing IETF protocol for a while now. Of course everyone can disagree with anything but I like the points they make. -Tom -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
