Talk:Connection-oriented

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i don't need to say any thing more than what i said before.--213.55.64.98 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)<

I've noted why I swapped this article around at Talk:Connection-oriented protocol. Any comments gratefully received. Also removed my previous merge proposal, because I believe these edits have precluded such a move.--W33v1l 16.10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing TCP from the list of connection-oriented protocol examples in this Wikipedia listing. Why? Well ... TCP is reliable AND TCP is stateful (session-oriented). But ... TCP does not concern itself with network paths. As far as TCP is concerned, it doesn't care how its datagrams traverse from sender to receiver. It could follow the same path, or it could follow different paths. If a path changes dynamically (e.g.; if a primary link switches over to a secondary link), TCP will not try to re-establish its "connection". It will just try to retransmit lost datagrams and continue. If indeed the session is lost, then it will try to re-establish the session; but again, it doesn't really care about the actual path. Let me know what you think! Dtschaefer 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find references to RFC:s and arguments supporting that TCP is connection-oriented in the virtual circuit article.

I suggest a merge of this article with that one.

Perhaps the definition of connection oriented should be modified to invovle that a bit stream or byte stream is delivered, or a sequence of data packets in order. How it is done is another question - it does not have to be sent along the same path. Mange01 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge with virtual circuit

Disagree. Both virtual and actual circuits are connection orientated, not just virtuals.--Phil Holmes 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)