On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:37:23AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > We should think about how difficult it would be to allow the various > non-streaming messages (ie. the messages that do not contain a stream of > data) to be transmitted via UDP, as opposed to TCP. > > Clearly, this would require thought about how we can achieve the same > crypto goals in a UDP packet that we achieve with a TCP connection, but > the prize could be a massive speed-up in Freenet's searching and > inserting performance. > > Thoughts?
It is probably a good idea in the long term. In the short term the question is is it sufficiently important that we should do it before 1.0? Alternate transport layers are something that has been widely expected to be post-1.0. W.r.t. firewalls etc, of course we would support the same messages over TCP, and of course it would take relatively little effort to allow for multiple transports and multihoming within a single transport. Having said that, UDP for messages would not be a full transport - it would be an option within a mainly TCP based transport... In any case, it is more urgent to implement multiplexing and nio. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Founder, Locutus http://locut.us/ > Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/ > Get Freenet http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8891/iCnXWoOUlxA/ > Link good for 24 hours from this email -- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at http://80-192-4-36.cable.ubr09.na.blueyonder.co.uk:8889/N1E-K~HDr2Q/ ICTHUS.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
