What about TCP limitations such as maximum connection counts etc. How would I go about handling that or getting around it?
On 2/6/07, Bryan Sant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/4/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Solution: Use TCP. Keeping track of connections is what it was > designed for, and fortunately pretty much all network hardware is > designed to work with TCP connections, so you don't have to hack your > way around them. What Steve wants to do can be done with UDP. It's the layer 3 part of the TCP/IP stack that handles source/destination address:port information. UDP is built on IP (and TCP is built on UDP), so Steve can keep a unique list of users based on a source ip:port hash. So it is possible. However, I completely agree with Levi. Your application is inherently session based. TCP handles sessions for you (at least at the packet level). You will end up writing a crappy. bloated, version of TCP by the time you're done with this project anyway. Why not just use TCP? Game makers will often use UDP for LAN games because: A) LANs are reliable B) Even if there is packet loss, newer packets always have updated information (such as x,y,z location, etc), so there is no need for an aggressive, re-transmitting protocol like TCP. TCP prevents packet loss and is generally "A Good Thing" (tm) when sending data across the (unreliable) Internet -- hence HTTP being TCP based even though it is a stateless protocol. > But I strongly suggest you just use TCP. Me too. -Bryan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
