From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x244.google.com (mail-qt0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 058E43B29E for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x244.google.com with SMTP id d3so19102682qth.8 for ; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 02:56:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Aggt+Ijhiip+jaKx18M87uTAj8xPriqidCFRv71zycQ=; b=mktwzcne9mXNadYalmwYmOI79X4uknc8rIomm0xY6kz0BvQty9skQa/KdYYANo7R5t rBxodogRthoYALW/Oy4bT2p0mCqHljuw/cleGsV7OAMJLQLa1TgngGQHec4J8qWWeL9m O3PoKW0Gc49XsC2JDhJvr2OIMSfy4JzY+R1OVu1EEh93zYj6ksxMcACIrxXxxV1aTqf3 Jnpv5owuF4v0s9uf6gSLQg1V9hDp2YawC2uRUrcniKVQENIHK2+jIY5omkt0xj765o8K Jvhcbu7m/Qb6yWfG0CqSizeh1/jo7tSgRceftS/+KO5UfacZrM5pa96Oi7eV4zaPZfWt 4gyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Aggt+Ijhiip+jaKx18M87uTAj8xPriqidCFRv71zycQ=; b=W5Ysy1XnQdWuSbVmQrMC7cgtVgWvMlREhOo//uiYwioDtjfdVXjyh8SIWysNLP4tbI 4CXAoUj4qwdNRM8R/mk6zPkgicFNrOevNrNVePsZFayHfg6E2isKlMUbn3t4a29akMsK jeV5FjtcwbxC+9Y+imJnHSN2q4UsGRGzmboq4fp+Bv0zaC4Pbeq3qCjBDqskmHXa3OAI aKmvi1WQbNev7MMtuDnlBpdaqgDDaaR//gql4q+W4tlPUL2xU5qjyFTdtYxKH4DkEL0O JH6ak+Rjm/4j6slQzIDS17oO+6kCwGF/0tXwsjEvr0Tj+UydNY4toa24D5j4bi5AQDkb nNAw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tC2l+Ya5UgOjn8TTdVkGtUqbn3IOOTQKwRZs6ejnl2B2ezdN67t YQBh4U2bxnrg1dGGqeYYaLHNAmCOtkvcoBCn5vI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48RDRN62YBtYuycK6aQPGViDThwgaQwkxXfp3Rdir313ufE5us1GS/G3xye7x/o9HQAzgPodrkPQm6pu5ZsbBw= X-Received: by 10.200.57.117 with SMTP id t50mr25965872qtb.22.1522835790526; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 02:56:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.209.134 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 02:56:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <50e57074-4ca5-59f7-f010-d9b2b845a8a7@rogers.com> <8DE589C3-9537-416D-AC7C-9250464869F9@gmail.com> <0ED5B59A-5C31-4F70-A2C9-04D9EA779A7B@ifi.uio.no> From: Luca Muscariello Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:56:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: Dave Taht , Jonathan Morton , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11406cb2587d31056902d660" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:56:31 -0000 --001a11406cb2587d31056902d660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I'm looking at TAPS too as I'm looking for a general transport API other than TCP/UDP. The kind of transport services we have developed in here https://git.fd.io/cicn/ do not fit in the current API. Full user land implementation, which seems to be accepted nowadays, but not at all a few years back. The API however is a hack of the INET API, which is rather obsolete, but this is what current apps can use. So, hope TAPS gets traction. And yes, IPv6, absolutely. Going through IPv4 middle boxes is a nightmare. No hope there. And yes, flow queueing, absolutely. Flow isolation, becomes fundamental is such a zoo, or jungle. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Dave Taht wrote: > > How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. >> > > POSIX nowadays is > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > > My take on it is that the IETF should not be scared to do APIs, even > though there is a lot of resistance still. > > However, the IETF should not do POSIX APIs, but instead something of their > own. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --001a11406cb2587d31056902d660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm looking at TAPS too as I'm looking for a gener= al transport API other than TCP/UDP.

The kind of transpo= rt services we have developed in here h= ttps://git.fd.io/cicn/ do not fit in the current API.
Full us= er land implementation, which seems to be accepted nowadays, but not at all= a few years back.
The API however is a hack of the INET API, whi= ch is rather obsolete, but this is what current apps can use.
So,= hope TAPS gets traction.

And yes, IPv6, absolutel= y. Going through IPv4 middle boxes is a nightmare. No hope there.

And yes, flow queueing, absolutely. Flow isolation, becomes= fundamental is such a zoo, or jungle.

=C2=A0









On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Mikael = Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Dave Taht wrote:

How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.

 POSIX nowadays is

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799= /

My take on it is that the IETF should not be scared to do APIs, even though= there is a lot of resistance still.

However, the IETF should not do POSIX APIs, but instead something of their = own.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson=C2=A0 =C2=A0 email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--001a11406cb2587d31056902d660--