-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:14:46 +0100 >Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 18 October 2015 at 23:43, Aleksandar Kuktin <akuk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > BAM! I run straight into RUDP. "Designed at Bell Labs for the Plan 9 > > operating system". I just skimmed through the (expired) IETF draft > > from 1999 and I honestly think the design might be too much. It > > looks like it's almost completely like TCP, but without segmenting > > and possibly > > > > The Cisco RUDP defined in the IETF draft is not the rudp in the Plan > 9 code. Both use a UDP shell to carry their packets, but the two RUDP > headers are different.
There are two RUDPs? O.o > The protocols seem to be unrelated. The Cisco one is derived from an > earlier BBN one, > and all three had the tcp-like SYN/ACK/RST flags. Plan 9's does not. That's a good thing. The less flags and states, the better. - -- Svi moji e-mailovi su kriptografski potpisani. Proverite ih. All of my e-mails are cryptographically signed. Verify them. - -- You don't need an AI for a robot uprising. Humans will do just fine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWJUSRAAoJEKa4cgqNx31/aDYP/0AS8wyBKxnlkbwdWi8VT4+Z /BbTfQa+nN5HcDPn1xI+2roFri+R8I/wqHMsSHHgTAbUMP7bar4L52aFY0yUXJiW apmzyVzLHHBKXlmV15GAWoMWKTDstrmqArN0/xOMHys2ldyYn/chxlEBVjbKWSQD nm96LLcKz5xDnTP0ebGg5v7P2YhIOMVCcwSyPfRDG04fY6T6HqkwfvFhnTiYhs/G vghQJHYurF5SpcCE8KiCJgd3jnoNP+Rsm8WHdF6JCWU6jDeC16Gi3WOpIzEcFUGk bP9HC7rB2CND8wmU1XZB1dvkLSP2OLxeR4CVZVItMoRB3HYJ0VarDxc8V4Vpst11 WVkFeSLci6VqGhAccQQCKW9kPmfo73UGZ0OXKfS+Nc4ZvDLGZ804UM9koTb5bP+C KKTKBbYcqeKucfRAHZJ/TjsNju7zuEw1FZt/dxmjdIqrGcP3ryAFeBMfsd7ZlKZu mHWj7oP3ipJZJS0gvtRRHBQSvRsrQ3LwAwtlKBqpXCeFyqhkh/H5TM1ji+emJ2SN buJiCn7+1IUsy26C4lToYA9RDd52zpSaOGBDGZ+j4ol0fkfap6uM2ncUBhjfhZWs dSITGTpWkblpcxAphMw2SdgDqcAW3p348wcdqlgaMGI2O9PDR9LL5rsBbR3Xl6RJ XKZVPi/IAEA1eURGPGVq =dNnW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
