On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:23:15PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:28:15PM -0600, Scott Miller wrote:
> > Remember though, guys, that UDP is unreliable, so you're going to need a
> > protocol for determining if your message was received, or you're going
> > to need a timeout. Freenet was designed to be protocol agnostic, but
> > its probably not tuned for lossy transports.
>
> We could simply use an ACK. A node could keep track of how long ACKs
> normally take, and timeout after twice the average ACK response time,
> falling back to TCP and noting not to try to talk to that node using
> UDP again. This would be better than having a one-size-fits-all
> timeout.
>
> Clearly, if the initial message is not correctly signed, no ACK will be
> sent.
Doing this ourselves is a waste of time. We'd be better off with a
second-generation IP protocol like SCTP or RUDP. The former is a TCP
replacement, the latter is a reliable UDP protocol layered over standard
UDP.
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030312/f484326f/attachment.pgp>
