[AG-TECH] Additional bridging questions

Robert Olson olson at mcs.anl.gov
Mon Jun 9 14:09:51 CDT 2003

the problem with TCP tunnels is that unless the bridge is quite clever, 
congestion in the network will result in a growing backlog of traffic as 
TCP attempts to reliably deliver all your traffic, congestion or not...


At 08:25 PM 6/9/2003 +0900, shudo at ni.aist.go.jp wrote:
> > From: Robert Olson <olson at mcs.anl.gov>
> > >Looking at the Quickbridge, it seems a viable option, and I've heard of it
> > >being done, to use two Quickbridges on either side of a firewall (or
> > >router) to 'tunnel' the multicast between two disconnected multicast
> > >domains.  Anybody done this?  Willing to share the details?
> >
> > If you're doing this anyway, would it be possible to convince the firewall
> > admins to just let multicast UDP pass thru?
>If bridge software can carry traffic over a TCP connection not only
>forwarding UDP datagrams, it becomes easier to establish a tunnel in
>many cases.  Many firewalls allow us to establish TCP connections from
>the inside and a tunnel over TCP can be tolerant of IP address translation.
>Current QuickBridge can forward UDP datagrams and cannot make a tunnel
>over TCP connections.  Is it nice to enhance QuickBridge to support
>TCP tunnels?  Or, are there any bridge software which supports TCP tunnels?
>   Kazuyuki Shudo        shudo at computer.org      http://www.shudo.net/

More information about the ag-tech mailing list