How not to get a protocol implementation merged [LWN.net]

How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Posted Jan 13, 2011 20:07 UTC (Thu) by fredrik (subscriber, #232)
In reply to: How not to get a protocol implementation merged by Cyberax
Parent article: How not to get a protocol implementation merged

I'm not arguing for inventing new protocols. I just want to point out that one reason to base a protocol on udp instead of tcp is reduced latency. This is especially important, and noticable, in current mobile networks like GSM and UMTS.

(Log in to post comments)

How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Posted Jan 13, 2011 21:54 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

Wouldn't SCTP suffice?

How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Posted Jan 20, 2011 10:22 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]

Well I'm not an expert but SCTP has an initial handshake which require at least one roundtrip before sending data, so the connection initiation isn't low latency..

I wonder why they did it this way?
Me I would have authorised the initiation of the connection (INIT) with a data filed with the possibility of the server (INIT ACK) replying that it dropped the data (either to simplify its implementation or because it is overloaded in case a cracker try to spoof IPs) thus requiring the client to re-send the data.
With this simple design, you have low-latency(*) and security..

*: only if the server isn't overloaded though.