On 01/21/2011 11:59 AM, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
If I understand correctly....

UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine
reads only X packets per second, the sending machine is still sending
and you're still receiving. If the packets build up too far your
machine will drop them, but you've already used the bandwidth to get
them there before they were dropped!
I agree it's a terrible waste -- but, I say, tough luck. Surely the
senders will throttle back when they start seeing some of their packets
not being acknowledged. (Like I said, we should avoid this situation as
much as possible, but ultimately the user has to be in control. The
network, selfish as this might sound, comes second!)
NO! We're using UDP - UDP packets have no acknowledgment. TCP would behave like 
you describe, but UDP senders have no way of knowing that there's a problem.

Which brings this non-techies to the obvious (to me) question: So why are we using UDP instead of TCP?

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to