On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:31:24PM +0000, Timm Murray wrote:
> > 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.
RUDP *is* UDP; its a protocol for using UDP reliably. Even so, using
UDP and our own scheme makes you just as easily detectable because of
the way we'll be using it (Thats a freenet node because of what it did
when packets were not acknowledged, and how hard it kept trying, eg).
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/20030313/25acbb40/attachment.pgp>
