What I was referring to is the cascading time-out problems you can sometimes get
tunnelling one TCP connection over another, e.g. HTTP over a PPP over SSH connection:
3. HTTP (TCP)
2. IP
1. PPP
0. SSH (TCP)
Sometimes if a time-out occurs and layers 0 and 3 have different retransmission timers,
the retransmissions kill the whole shebang.
More details can be found at:
http://sites.inka.de/~W1011/devel/tcp-tcp.html
Not sure if this will be a problem with NSP over TCP however, but I can imagine it might
be (if the NSP retransmission timer is faster than the underlying TCP timers).
Sampsa
On 13 May 2009, at 15:25, Paul Koning wrote:
"Sampsa" == Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> writes:
Sampsa> The main disadvantage I can see is that SSH runs over TCP so
Sampsa> any dropped packets might cause more delays than using
Sampsa> straight UDP.
That isn't actually a disadvantage when you travel all the way to the
top of the stack. Yes, the DECnet network layer (just like IP) uses,
and provides, a datagram service. But it also uses retransmit
internally for stuff that has to get through, and of course the
transport layer (NSP) makes a reliable service through timeout and
retry.
So a tunnel over TCP is just fine. It means you have a lossless
network (ignoring congestion in the DECnet nodes). So instead of
having delays due to timeout and retransmit in NSP, you have the same
delay (or, quite possibly, a shorter delay) due to timeout and
retransmit in TCP. The overall application performance should come
out essentially the same.
paul