On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:38:02PM +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 4 Apr 2018, at 21:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave Taht wrote:
> >> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > IETF has lore
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:06:22PM +0200, Luca Muscariello wrote:
> I'm aware of this one. The last time I checked Linux patches seemed to be
> abandoned.
> Hit ratio could be v v low if you remove UDP encap. Look at IPSEC.
And SCTP.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
>
Sent from my iPhone
> On 4 Apr 2018, at 21:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Dave Taht wrote:
>> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
>
> I disagree.
>
> IETF has lore says that it doesn't do APIs well, and so it's a
> self-fullfiling prophecy. Everyone kn
Dave Taht wrote:
> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
I disagree.
IETF has lore says that it doesn't do APIs well, and so it's a
self-fullfiling prophecy. Everyone knows it's true without any actual
evidence, so nobody tries.
Who does do APIs well today?
The phenomenon is called "lava flow", and is a classic anti-pattern
illustrated at http://antipatterns.com/lavaflow.htm
Their approach to fixing is ancient, though: there are
correctness-preserving refactorings for some of the problem space.
Alas, I don't know if middleboxes are correctable...
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM Jim Gettys wrote:
> To get to really good RTT's (with low jitter), you still need fq_codel
> (or similar). You just can't get there by hacking TCP no matter how hard
> you try...
>
>
I agree with you on all points here. However, any change which patches an
existi
I'm aware of this one. The last time I checked Linux patches seemed to be
abandoned.
Hit ratio could be v v low if you remove UDP encap. Look at IPSEC.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Luca Muscariello wrote:
>
> And yes, flow queueing, absolutely
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Luca Muscariello wrote:
And yes, flow queueing, absolutely. Flow isolation, becomes fundamental
is such a zoo, or jungle.
There was talk in IETF about a transport protocol that was proposed to do
a lot of things TCP doesn't do, but still retain some things that has been
u
I'm looking at TAPS too as I'm looking for a general transport API other
than TCP/UDP.
The kind of transport services we have developed in here
https://git.fd.io/cicn/ do not fit in the current API.
Full user land implementation, which seems to be accepted nowadays, but not
at all a few years back
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Michael Welzl wrote:
well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess
that’s part of the problem
It's not about refusing to do so, it's because other SDOs have told the
IETF not to. If IETF tries to touch POSIX, the SDO that does POSIX doesn't
appreciate
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Dave Taht wrote:
How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
POSIX nowadays is
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
My take on it is that the IETF should not be scared to do APIs, even
though there is a lot of resistance still.
Howev
well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess that’s part
of the problem
Sent from my iPhone
> On 4 Apr 2018, at 09:42, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl wrote:
>>
>>>
How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen <
> jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl wrote:
>
>> please, please, pe
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Michael Welzl wrote:
Sure, when you’re in control of both ends of a connection, you can build
whatever you want on top of UDP - but there’s a lot of wheel
re-inventing there. Really, the transport layer can’t change as long as
applications (or their libraries) are exposed t
14 matches
Mail list logo