To:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, "Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
Cc:
"Bill Manning" <bmanning@isi.edu>, "George Michaelson" <ggm@apnic.net>, "Peter Chow" <peter@interq.or.jp>, "Zhu Yu" <yu.zhu@i-dns.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
Date:
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:15:19 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.12.2.20010321163026.02bd6c10@brandenburg.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Design teams
At 4:31 PM -0600 3/21/01, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 04:00 PM 3/21/2001, Brian W. Spolarich wrote: >> Do folks really think the TCP overhead is that big of a >>problem? Memory and CPU is much cheaper these days, and I haven't >>seen a requirement stated that would necessitate going down >>the UDP road. > >the usual argument put forward by UDP devotees is that TCP >connection setup takes too long. However absent a standard, robust, >popular transaction transport protocol, TCP is a better choice than >UDP. UDP simply requires that you re-invent too much. Also, if done right, these connections should generally be fairly long-lived (lots of transactions per connection). Setup time becomes a rather small drop in the bucket if these connections are staying up for a while. Jordyn