[email protected] said: > Chris Wong wrote: > > Actually i want support for unreliable multicast vs reliable multicast. > > Zeromq is a nice framework to allow me to transparently switch the > > underlying transport. There are applications that don't need the > > ordering and lossless guarantee of PGM. > > > > The unreliable multicast transport may or may not work for all the > > messaging pattern but should at least work for the multicast pattern. > > Now it makes sense. Paradoxically, unreliable multicast is easier to > implement than unreliable unicast.
How so? Isn't unreliable unicast just unicast UDP? And unreliable multicast just multicast UDP? (But see below about datagram length) > Just copy pgm_sender.cpp/.hpp and pgm_receiver.cpp/.hpp, name it > udp_sender/udp_reciever. Rip off OpenPGM stuff, use UDP socket instead. This is starting to look the the 'udp' transport we don't have (yet) :-) > One additional thing that has to be done is to attach a sequence number > to each UDP packet, so that you know when packet was lost. Why would you need to know when a packet was lost, it is after all just unreliable multicast... What I see as more of a problem is that UDP datagrams are limited to 65,507 bytes in length, so any 0MQ UDP transport (multicast or unicast) would have to split and recombine messages. -mato _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
