On 7/28/2016 1:40 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > ... >> Those vendors shouldn't be looking at TCP options or TCP at all. It's >> none of their business. > Well, the question is what they are trying to solve by breaking TCP? > I personally suspect that the latency on some radio networks cause > a lot of retransmits. By adding a TCP proxy they avoid retransmits > wasting bandwidth and at the same time causing issues when it > doesn’t work. Can we help them with a better solution if this is > the problem? They should be doing FEC or ARQ at the link layer or via a tunnel across multiple radio links, but that requires more effort on their part (inserting and coordinating multiple components, rather than just one).
> Does anyone know what the problem they are trying to solve is? > (Still trying to find information) The one you cite above is one. Another intermittent connectivity. Another is bandwidth or device capability, but in those cases the proxy can be visible. >> This issue cannot be fixed merely by reacting to what vendors deploy. >> >> The solution has been clear for a long time - *compliance verification*. >> I assure you that vendors that get sued for saying "Internet compatible" >> who are not would behave differently. > So where do we have a good specification that we agree on defining > “Internet compatible” ? RFC1122/1123 for hosts. RFC1812 for routers. Joe
