<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>RE: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Paul Francis said on Fri 2006-09-22 23:23:<BR>
> Sure, but nevertheless it is interesting to compare them. I mean, what if we<BR>
> find out that fasttcp is just or nearly just as good as XCP. This tells us<BR>
> not to even bother looking at XCP cause of the deployment cost.<BR>
<BR>
While the Caltech IPR on Fast TCP tells us not to look at Fast TCP because of the deployment cost.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.fastsoft.com/fasttcp.html">http://www.fastsoft.com/fasttcp.html</A><BR>
<BR>
Note that the correct name of the protocol is FastTCP(TM) -- and that in FastSoft's preferred deployment model, you'd have to deploy their PEPs in front of every LAN... not so different from XCP.<BR>
<BR>
FastTCP has been out of the running for deployment ever since it was first announced -- with the Caltech IPR shackles mentioned in the slideset.<BR>
<BR>
L.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>