Subject: RE: ISMS working group and charter problems

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:32:34 -0700

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:22 PM
To: Eliot Lear
>>> The IETF has been doing extensive work on NAT traversal, have a look

>>> and see if you can reuse some existing mechanism.

>> All mechanisms used with the possible exception of an additional SNMP

>> table will be re-used from existing IETF work (mostly SSH with help
>> from
>> the fact that it's based on TCP).

>You do realize that you import all the weaknesses of TCP then, don't  
>you?

This issue was discussed within the ISMS WG over a period of several
weeks. During those discussions, I tried to explain why I believe that a
UDP transport alternative for ISMS needs to be available. I offered the
following technical reasons supporting this position:
1) Our experience is that SNMP over TCP has significantly worse behavior
in bandwidth constrained environments (e.g., wireless links) and during
times of network congestion than SNMP over UDP.
2)TCP's inappropriate behavior (i.e., treating latency as congestion and
thus "backing off") in high latency environments such as across
geo-stationary satellite links.

I do not understand why the WG did not resonate with these observations,
since these are very well known issues and the technical underlying
reasons easy to understand. I can only conclude that while these issues
are very important to the deployments with which I am familiar, they are
sadly not relevant to the majority of the ISMS WG. I believe that ISMS
would be a better solution if it could operate within all envisioned
environments.

--Eric

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:03:42 -0500

FWIW, the RUTS BoF in Orlando captured a decently canonical list of "why TCP 
is not the right answer for my application" points, in case anyone needs to 
look at prior art :-)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/43rd-ietf-98dec-142.html

Ummm, when you guys are thinking about "SNMP over bandwidth-constrained 
wireless links", I'm wondering what kind of "wireless links" you're thinking 
of - but that's gotta be off-topic for this thread.

Spencer

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>

--Eric/ietf