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
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
