Browse Prior Art Database

TCP Extensions Considered Harmful (RFC1263)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002081D
Original Publication Date: 1991-Oct-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-11
Document File: 19 page(s) / 32K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. O'Malley: AUTHOR [+1]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1263: DOI

Abstract

This RFC comments on recent proposals to extend TCP. It argues that the backward compatible extensions proposed in RFC's 1072 and 1185 should not be pursued, and proposes an alternative way to evolve the Internet protocol suite. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 6% of the total text.

Network Working Group S. O’Malley Request for Comments: 1263 L. Peterson University of Arizona October 1991

TCP EXTENSIONS CONSIDERED HARMFUL

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this document is unlimited.

Abstract

This RFC comments on recent proposals to extend TCP. It argues that the backward compatible extensions proposed in RFC’s 1072 and 1185 should not be pursued, and proposes an alternative way to evolve the Internet protocol suite. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion in the Internet community.

1. Introduction

The rapid growth of the size, capacity, and complexity of the Internet has led to the need to change the existing protocol suite. For example, the maximum TCP window size is no longer sufficient to efficiently support the high capacity links currently being planned and constructed. One is then faced with the choice of either leaving the protocol alone and accepting the fact that TCP will run no faster on high capacity links than on low capacity links, or changing TCP. This is not an isolated incident. We have counted at least eight other proposed changes to TCP (some to be taken more seriously than others), and the question is not whether to change the protocol suite, but what is the most cost effective way to change it.

This RFC compares the costs and benefits of three approaches to making these changes: the creation of new protocols, backward compatible protocol extensions, and protocol evolution. The next section introduces these three approaches and enumerates the strengths and weaknesses of each. The following section describes how we believe these three approaches are best applied to the many proposed changes to TCP. Note that we have not written this RFC as an academic exercise. It is our intent to argue against acceptance of the various TCP extensions, most notably RFC’s 1072 and 1185 [4,5], by describing a more palatable alternative.

O’Malley & Peterson [Page 1]

RFC 1263 TCP Extensions Considered Harmful October 1991

2. Creation vs. Extension vs. Evolution

2.1. Protocol Creation

Protocol creation involves the design, implementation, standardization, and distribution of an entirely new protocol. In this context, there are two basic reasons for creating a new protocol. The first is to replace an old protocol that is so outdated that it can no longer be effectively extended to perform its original function. The second is to add a new protocol because users are making demands upon the original protocol that were not envisioned by the designer and cannot be efficiently handled in terms of the original protocol. For example, TCP was designed as a reliable byte-stream protocol but is commonly used as both a reliable record- stream protocol and a reliable request-reply protocol due to the lack of such protocols in the Internet protocol suite. The performance demands placed upon a byte-stream protocol in the new Internet enviro...

Processing...
Loading...