Subject: Re: Some words from the cochairs...

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 15:45:10 -0800

At 2:47 PM 11/8/94, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>Shall we learn from mistakes or perpetuate them?
>
>There is no native AppleShare/IPX/SNA/NetBIOS on the Internet and IMO
>this is a good thing.

you're missing something. My customers don't ask me what to run. They buy
my box if I do well with what they use. What's true for the Internet needs
to be true in their private networks, and that often means making it true
for brain-dead protocols.

=============================================================================
        If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1994 19:28:52 -0500

> for brain-dead protocols.

And you do a great job of encapsulating those brain dead protocols and
sending them through the Internet using TCP.  That's what we do when
someone asks for SNA/IPX/AppleShare - using your boxes.  I don't think
we've ever had a request for NetBIOS.

And that is how SNA/IPX/AppleShare/etc does a very good job of
adapting to load and sharing bandwidth over the Internet today.

Can we document requirements for elastic traffic and say TCP?  Should
we just substitute transport protocol and make the best generic
statement possible about propogation delay, speed of response to
change in load and feedback time?  Or do others agree with Amit that
this is out of scope and belongs in router requirements?  

I don't seem to remember anone ever objecting to references to RSVP
made in the WG.  Why the objections to TCP?

Curtis