11–20 of 31 posts
> TCP/IP communication is currently restricted to a single path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers.
In reality, IP modules of all the hosts and routers can load-balance over a set of all available interfaces, as long as global routing information is available.
Heck. I even tried to add it into git because i was having issues with reliable connectivity with WiFi and 5G (i was in a hotel at that time) while working on a project.
So unless, if there is some reason why people kept giving reasons of not include it. I just do not have a reason to add support for $(name your favorite software)
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/63...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's because of firewalls. You need to be either UDP or TCP to work in the Internet at large. Though SCTP did find its place as a layer in WebRTC.
Coming from the telecoms space, I was slightly amazed to see how little well known SCTP actually is in the networking world. My old company/offices had site internet provided by one of the top 50 UK Managed Service Providers. They swapped out the on-site router not many years ago as the fibre to site was being upgraded from 100mbit to gigabit and so a new Juniper firewall with GBE ports was required. Turns out the ne…
did you file a customer complaint for the device you bought not supporting basic internet protocols? If I look here it mentions "internet" but not TCP or UDP. I'd argue it's false advertising if it actually only supports a percentage of actual internet traffic.
Seems like a fool's errand. The cited RFC8684 starts from the wrong premise: > TCP/IP communication is currently restricted to a single path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers. In reality, IP modules of all the hosts and routers can load-balance over a set of all available interfaces, as long as global routing information is available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from the telecoms space, I was slightly amazed to see how little well known SCTP actually is in the networking world. My old company/offices had site internet provided by one of the top 50 UK Managed Service Providers. They swapped out the on-site router not many years ago as the fibre to site was being upgraded from 100mbit to gigabit and so a new Juniper firewall with GBE ports was required. Turns out the ne…
> Juniper SRX fundamentally didn't support passing SCTP data and suddenly we lost access to all our remote stuff that used it. did you file a customer complaint for the device you bought not supporting basic internet protocols? If I look here it mentions "internet" but not TCP or UDP. I'd argue it's false advertising if it actually only supports a percentage of actual internet traffic.
Juniper themselves stated in the manual that this base model device didn't support SCTP, though on ever other level it was faster, more capable and more featureful than the mid-range but much older device it replaced. The MSP didn't have a clue that we (or anyone else for that matter) used SCTP so missed the single footnote mention that the command to enable SCTP forwarding might not be available on some base-level devices.
In their defence, I'm not sure _I'd_ have thought to check if SCTP was supported and I had it running on my network. It works over the internet, it's basically IP, how could it not be suppo---oh.
Hey! MPTCP again! Back in Jan I wrote a piece about how to actually use MPTCP https://blog.cloudflare.com/multi-path-tcp-revolutionizing-c... But plenty has changed since then. It seems all my complains about the API are now addressed. Maybe it's a good time to actually run with MPTCP again :) In my private affairs, I realised I need MPTCP less, since I started using tailscale. My SSH sessions tend to last longer whe…
My biggest disappointment with MPTCP was that seemingly, you need both the old and new address to be available when doing handover. So you cannot suspend your laptop, go to a different place, and resume the TCP sessions on the new Wi-Fi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from the telecoms space, I was slightly amazed to see how little well known SCTP actually is in the networking world. My old company/offices had site internet provided by one of the top 50 UK Managed Service Providers. They swapped out the on-site router not many years ago as the fibre to site was being upgraded from 100mbit to gigabit and so a new Juniper firewall with GBE ports was required. Turns out the ne…
Funny enough, the first and last time I heard of sctp was in “Unix network programming”. It seemed so promising according to Stevens.
Sort of related, I'm curious why SCTP did not take off more in this space? It might have had more telecom origins maybe but seemed to fill some of the same needs back in the day. https://docs.kernel.org/networking/sctp.html PS the kernel work goes back to 2003!
Sort of related, I'm curious why SCTP did not take off more in this space? It might have had more telecom origins maybe but seemed to fill some of the same needs back in the day. https://docs.kernel.org/networking/sctp.html PS the kernel work goes back to 2003!
SCTP has several fundamental design flaws, which are sufficient to discourage anyone from actually trying to make all the middleware support it.
TCP as originally specified had fundamental design flaws too, but the TCP of today has significant differences from the 1981 TCP standard (not the first version of TCP, but the first version to see significant production use).