> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:32:04PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > 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. > > > > But how well does it support efficient fallback to TCP in the event of > > UDP failure? How well can it disguise the fact that we are a freenet > > node? > > Well, what are the cases where a UDP transmission would fail, but a TCP > connection would succeed? Its not a firewall, as we'd already be on a > port that a firewall would probably block. If a hole is opened for it, > then one can just as easily open the UDP port. SCTP is a different case > altogether, as its not built ontop of UDP anyway. > > How well can we disguise the fact that we're a freenet node over UDP?
I think what Ian was getting at was that if Freenet uses SCTP/RUDP, and few other applications use those protocols, then Freenet traffic will stick out to anyone with a sniffer. UDP is fairly common (especially with the popularity of multiplayer games), so it's not a big deal. Of course, this won't be a problem if/when SCTP/RUDP becomes popular. _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
