Re: New draft possibilities

[Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost>]

In article <15F6428B71F2CC3D02A44AE0%maguro.savecore.net@localhost> you write:
>On August 30, 2005 3:25:12 AM -0400 der Mouse <mouse%Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA@localhost> wrote:
>>> A TCP tunnel would change the characteristics of most UDP apps quite
>>> significantly and would not be desirable, I'd think.
>>
>> Depends on what you're using UDP for.  It will change the
>> characteristics of UDP, but whether the change is significant will
>> depend on the application UDP is being put to.
>>
>> For example, I would expect it to work fine for DNS traffic (which is
>> pretty close to the only use I can see for it offhand, though that
>> could just mean I don't do much with UDP).
>
>But what happens when DNS times out and sends a retry, while TCP has
>also queued it's own retry?  You end up drastically increasing the
>amount of network traffic.

Not necessarily.  A reasonable implementation of UDP-over-SSH would notice
the TCP congestion (in the Unix world, by write() on the TCP socket
returning EWOULDBLOCK) and drop incoming UDP until it cleared.  I'm not an
expert in congestion control, though, and I think one would need to be
consulted to determine the actual scope of the problem.

>Or were IP protocoles not really used over X.25?

They certainly were.  When I arrived at University in 1994, we had a 2 Mbit
X.25 connection over which we ran IP.

-- 
Ben Harris