Subject: [Tsvwg] Re: tsvwg digest, Vol 1 #549 - 11 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:47:33 EST

From: "Kedar  S. Sovani" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "Kedar  S. Sovani" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
format=flowed
Subject: [Tsvwg] SCTP aggregation

hi,
     Some time before there was a discussion on having something 
analogous to TCP aggregation in SCTP. That is the routers in the 
way can decide how many data chunks may go into a single packet 
depending upon the MTU available. But if the SCTP sender is using 
the PMTU discovery algorithm, why will anything of this sort be 
needed.
     Don't u think this will be redundancy ?

KSCOS.

Router writers have been know to add bells and whistles to attempt to 
differentiate their product.  If the protocol does not prevent it, they can 
do it with no permission from the protocol.  CPU power is getting cheap 
faster than net bandwidth.  If it happens to be you walking with your back to 
the train, you appreciate the bells and whistles.

It might be a better solution, since there is no groping and successive 
approximation and firewall black hole problem as with PMTU.  There is better 
reliability than with fragmentation.  And a varying MTU is not degraded to 
least common denominator, but rather as much of the full MTU is used whenever 
possible. 

Redundancy can be a source of robustness.