Hi,

I have read in some books as follows :-

Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
verify and sequence that data

can any one give examples for this ?

Am Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:31:17 -0700 schrieb aarklon:

> Hi,
>
> I have read in some books as follows :-
>
> Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
> besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
> verify and sequence that data
>
> can any one give examples for this ?

you would need a protocoll which can route and address packets, but an
example...

Burkhard Ott wrote:
> Am Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:31:17 -0700 schrieb aarklon:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have read in some books as follows :-
>>
>> Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
>> besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
>> verify and sequence that data
>>
>> can any one give examples for this ?
>
> you would need a protocoll which can route and address packets, but an
> example...
TCP over IPX ?

aarklon wrote:

> Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
> besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
> verify and sequence that data
>
> can any one give examples for this ?

Here's a list of possible Ethernet payloads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethertype
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers

I don't know whether anybody uses TCP over something other than IPv4
and IPv6.

On Aug 13, 2:31*am, aark...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read in some books as follows :-
>
> Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
> besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
> verify and sequence that data
>
> can any one give examples for this ?

It's not clear what you're asking. What are you asking?

If you're asking for examples of TCP actually being used with IP, I
doubt you'll find any. This is a theoretical possibility, but not one
that there would seem to be any reason to actually do.

The closest to an example I can think of is TCP-over-UDP
implementations that are used in special cases where TCP behavior is
wanted but TCP is not usable (because of firewalls or NAT). TCP-over-
UDP-over-STUN, for example.

DS

Am Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:06:53 -0700 schrieb David Schwartz:
> The closest to an example I can think of is TCP-over-UDP
> implementations that are used in special cases where TCP behavior is
> wanted but TCP is not usable (because of firewalls or NAT). TCP-over-
> UDP-over-STUN, for example.
>
> DS

But you need IP for that either and you loose the advantages of TCP.

On Aug 13, 11:38*pm, Burkhard Ott <n...@derith.de> wrote:

> Am Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:06:53 -0700 schrieb David Schwartz:

> > The closest to an example I can think of is TCP-over-UDP
> > implementations that are used in special cases where TCP behavior is
> > wanted but TCP is not usable (because of firewalls or NAT). TCP-over-
> > UDP-over-STUN, for example.

> But you need IP for that either and you loose the advantages of TCP.

You do need IP, but the TCP is not layered (directly) over IP. As for
loosing the advantages, no, you don't. You can keep all of the
advantages of TCP this way. (Unless you know of some advantage I'm not
thinking of.) You can still implement it in kernel space, you can
still have slow start, reordering, duplicate rejection, and so on. You
can implement it TCP-over-UDP with all of TCP's features.

DS

Burkhard Ott <news@derith.de> writes:

> Am Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:06:53 -0700 schrieb David Schwartz:
>> The closest to an example I can think of is TCP-over-UDP
>> implementations that are used in special cases where TCP behavior is
>> wanted but TCP is not usable (because of firewalls or NAT). TCP-over-
>> UDP-over-STUN, for example.
>>
>> DS
>
> But you need IP for that either and you loose the advantages of TCP.

Yes, but the OP asked about a theoretical implemention without IP.
Given that, it makes sense that either (a) there is no routing, or (b)
the user has to do their own routing using somethingother than IP.

David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

> You do need IP, but the TCP is not layered (directly) over IP. As for
> loosing the advantages, no, you don't. You can keep all of the
> advantages of TCP this way. (Unless you know of some advantage I'm not
> thinking of.) You can still implement it in kernel space, you can
> still have slow start, reordering, duplicate rejection, and so on. You
> can implement it TCP-over-UDP with all of TCP's features.

UDP uses IP for routing. So instead of
TCP -> IP
you have
TCP -> UDP -> IP
So technically it's not IP directly underneath. It's just buried a layer lower.

But it is an example of TCP over "something other than IP."
I hope the OP finds this interesting. I do. Thanks.

aarklon@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have read in some books as follows :-
>
> Theoretically, you could have TCP without IP, some other n/w mechanism
> besides IP could deliver the data to an address, and TCP could still
> verify and sequence that data
>
> can any one give examples for this ?

There is/was TCP over IPX (see rfc1791). Don't know whether it was actually
implemented.

--
Huibert
"Okay... really not something I needed to see." --Raven