Subject: Inability to send control messages when TCP pacing window is shut

From: "Marcia Peters (8-444-4380)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 08:32:00 EDT

> This would preserve the TCP connection between two DLSw nodes at 2.
> I am still interested in hearing about responses to your earlier suggestion
> of having a Transport connection for each DL circuit. That would really
> simplify things.
>
> Choon Lee - 3Com Corp.

The proposal to have 2 connections instead of 1 (out of band signalling),
in order to have a non-flow-controlled channel on which to send control
messages, would exacerbate DLSW's current problem of inability to scale
well due to the current design point requiring a mesh of connections
between all DLSW nodes.

Marcia Peters - IBM

---

From: [email-masked] (Anand Subramaniam)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 7:56:56 PDT

> well due to the current design point requiring a mesh of connections
But the rfc currently proposes  a connection pair between the nodes each
connection used in simplex mode. This was clarified by many including Peter.
What I was proposing is to use the "unused simplex" channels of each of the 
connection. My previous mail attempts to explain this better. This was we don't deviate from the RFC. 

If the proponents of the RFC(R Dixon & D Kushi) can clarify this better, we
can go ahead from there.

Regards,
andy

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UUCP:  {ames,apple,sun,mtxinu}!excelan!andy         (Anand Subramaniam) |
| INTERNET:  [email-masked]                          Ph : (408)-473-8413 |
| " Now and then I go off in to my own little world; But they know me     |
|   there"                                                                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+