Yeah, my recollection from the last time this was discussed in TSV gives me little hope that one would be standardized, but I would like to discover I'm wrong here.
Bruce On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]> wrote: > For what (little) it's worth, there are existing implementation of > TCP-over-UDP. I found > > http://thebends.org/~allen/utunnel/ > http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/tcpoverudp/ > http://www.vergenet.net/linux/iproxy/iproxy_paper/stuff/iproxy_paper.pdf > http://code.google.com/p/tcpoverudp/ > > So we have several implementations *before* an Internet draft :-) > > Henning > > On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Salman Abdul Baset wrote: >> >> I am not religiously against running UDP between peers :). However, based >> on reasons stated earlier, I think that RELOAD base draft of the P2PSIP WG >> is the *not* right place to insert a reliable congestion control protocol. >> It is easy to get these protocols wrong than right. We should not abandon >> well designed TCP stacks so easily. >> >> As a practical insight, Skype application will not connect to the Skype >> network if it cannot establish a TCP connection with a Skype super node. >> >> For those who want to run UDP, I totally agree with your idea of use >> RFC-XXXX for a TCP-over-UDP protocol. >> >> I want to keep our focus on the issues of P2PSIP protocol such as >> configuration, security, and overlay maintenance. >> > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
