Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine

[<maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:00:59 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
>Subject: Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine  
>To: colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 14 April 2004 09:57 am, 
howerd.oakford@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> While I agree that a TCP implementation can be reduced 
compared to its
>> more generalized implementation in Linux, for example, you 
*cannot* get
>> rid of sliding windows (even if it is just a window of one 
packet),
>> retries, and packet re-ordering.  These things are there 
because of the
>> very nature of IP itself.  To simplify TCP any further, 
you need either
>> a reliable datagram service, such as AX.25 (or, for that 
matter, any
>> other variant of X.25), or you need to very tightly 
control the
>> electrical parameters under which your network is 
operating to ensure
>> pristine data delivery.  I won't get into the 
schizophrenia behind the
>> horror that is X.25, or the veritable Cthulu that is 
AX.25.  And I
>> certainly won't get into the routing messes that happen 
all-too-often
>> once the average IP packet leaves your local network and 
enters the
>> global switching fabric.
>
>All this sounds horrible. What could we simplify if we use 
only the
>network hardware to communicate between two Forth boxes?
>

I wouldn't give up yet. Chuck sugests on his page that TCP/IP 
could be done in 3 blocks. We have one block for IP, so maybe 
two blocks for TCP.

Complexity here is perhaps the price of admision for 
communicating with the world. There is no doubt things could 
be simpler.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com