Couldn't SCTP/DCCP (or a variant) over UDP (for NAT compatibility) work?
They seem both seem to be session oriented while loosening the other
restrictions of TCP,
On 4 June 2010 00:18, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.comexcors%2bwha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Erik
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:19 AM, James May wha...@fowlsmurf.net wrote:
Couldn't SCTP/DCCP (or a variant) over UDP (for NAT compatibility) work?
No, DCCP is much newer than most NAT hardware in operation.
When a client user agent is sending UDP, client-initiated TCP streams
such as HTTP or HTTPS
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:48:05 +0200, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad the discussion on this has taken off a bit. I've spoken to a few
more game devs and even though it's still relatively few there's a slight
majority that prefer the interface to be at the
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
[...]
One thing to remember here is that browsers have other means for
communication as well. I'm not saying we shouldn't support reliable messages
over UDP, but just pointing out the option.
Yep - the relevant use cases
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:34:17 +0200, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nothing about UDP is reliable, you just send packets and hope they get
there.
-Automatic keep-alives
You mean on the incoming-to-client TCP channel in the opposite
direction from the UDP traffic?
-Reliable
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
No it can't be UDP, it'll have to be something layered on top of UDP. One
of the game guys I spoke to last night said Honestly, I wish we just had
real sockets. It always seems like web coding comes down to reinventing a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:14:33 +0200, Philip Taylor excors+wha...@gmail.com
wrote:
More feedback is certainly good, though I think the libraries I
mentioned (DirectPlay/OpenTNL/RakNet/ENet (there's probably more)) are
useful
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.comexcors%2bwha...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm trying to think of them mainly as indirect examples of use cases,
rather than as direct examples of interfaces. Under the assumption
This is a very valid approach. (Note that most
The use case I'd like to address in this post is Real-time client/server
games.
The majority of the on-line games of today use a client/server model over
UDP and we should try to give game developers the tools they require to
create browser based games. For many simpler games a TCP based
On 1 Jun 2010, at 11:12, Erik Möller wrote:
The use case I'd like to address in this post is Real-time client/server
games.
The majority of the on-line games of today use a client/server model over UDP
and we should try to give game developers the tools they require to create
browser
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
The use case I'd like to address in this post is Real-time client/server
games.
The majority of the on-line games of today use a client/server model over
UDP and we should try to give game developers the tools they require
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:51 +0200, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
The use case I'd like to address in this post is Real-time client/server
games.
The majority of the on-line games of today use a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Kornel Lesinski kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On 1 Jun 2010, at 11:12, Erik Möller wrote:
The use case I'd like to address in this post is Real-time client/server
games.
The majority of the on-line games of today use a client/server model over
UDP and we
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Mike Belshe m...@belshe.com wrote:
FYI: SCTP is effectively non-deployable on the internet today due to NAT.
+1 on finding ways to enable UDP. It's a key missing component to the web
platform.
But there is so much infrastructure that would have to be
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Mike Belshe m...@belshe.com wrote:
FYI: SCTP is effectively non-deployable on the internet today due to
NAT.
+1 on finding ways to enable UDP. It's a key missing component to the web
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:45:51 +0200, Mike Belshe m...@belshe.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Mike Belshe m...@belshe.com wrote:
FYI: SCTP is effectively non-deployable on the internet today due to
NAT.
+1 on
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Erik Möller emol...@opera.com wrote:
[...]
I've never heard any gamedevs complain how poorly UDP matches their needs so
I'm not so sure about that, but you may be right it would be better to have
a higher level abstraction. If we are indeed targeting the game
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:14:33 +0200, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.com wrote:
More feedback is certainly good, though I think the libraries I
mentioned (DirectPlay/OpenTNL/RakNet/ENet (there's probably more)) are
useful as an indicator of common real needs (as opposed to edge-case
or
I agree UDP sockets are a legitimate, useful option, with applications
far beyond games. In most cases TCP is fine, but adaptive bit-rate
vocoders, for example, can use packet loss as an adaptation parameter,
and chose only to retransmit some of the more essential packets in
cases of congestion.
19 matches
Mail list logo
