Hi Joe, Am 28.07.2014 um 17:37 schrieb Joe Touch <[email protected]>:
> > > On 7/28/2014 1:38 AM, Zimmermann, Alexander wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 28.07.2014 um 08:57 schrieb marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As we discussed in the meeting, we should try to make some design decisions >>> for TCPINC. >>> One of them is whether to protect or not the TCP header. >>> I would like to start the discussion on this topic. Arguments on one way or >>> the other? >> >> if folks want to protect the TCP header, I don’t see a (straightforward) way >> on how we can >> use todays TOE. No TOE is a NO-GO for (at least) data center environments. > > TOE doesn't replace the OS TCP, or the fact that the OS TCP is in control of > the offload support. For any TCP modification, either the TOE supports that > modification with an extended interface to the OS or not; if not, then the OS > can't use the TOE for that connection. > > None of this is new or specific to TCPINC. full ACK. However, how many TCP extension we develop in the last decade that breaks TOE? See for example MPTCP. You can design an extension in that way that doesn’t break TOE. > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
