Re: [boost] [asio] RFC on new reliable UDP library

Subject: Re: [boost] [asio] RFC on new reliable UDP library
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-11 05:51:27

On 10 Sep 2014 at 13:36, Cory Nelson wrote:

> I'd suggest looking at BitTorrent's uTP. It's well established and is built
> with reliability, perf, and firewall compatibility in mind. It does have
> congestion control tuned to be a lower priority than any other traffic, but
> I see no reason that couldn't be changed (or made configurable).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Transport_Protocol

I didn't know about this protocol before, thank you. It seems this 
wheel is constantly reinvented.

On 10 Sep 2014 at 23:12, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> On Tuesday 09 September 2014 17:59:12 Niall Douglas wrote:
> > Dear Boost and ASIO users,
> > 
> > CC: boost_at_[hidden], asio-users_at_[hidden]
> > 
> > I am writing to ask for comments on the design of and interest in 
a
> > generic reliable messaging library based on ASIO.
> 
> How would it compare to SCTP and why not just add support for SCTP 
to 
> Boost.ASIO?

It wouldn't compare to SCTP. It would make the adding of SCTP support 
to ASIO much easier hopefully.

On 11 Sep 2014 at 9:26, Václav Zeman wrote:

> +1. I have had the same thought.

For my client's purposes, SCTP is not useful because it is not TCP 
nor UDP, and therefore is not understood by home networking 
equipment. This is a showstopper for them. There is SCTP over UDP, 
however there is no mature portable implementation library for that 
which I am aware of. In comparison, UDT is portable and has a mature 
portable implementation library, and one in fairly high quality C++ 
at that too. Hence the choice of UDT over SCTP as the second wire 
format we are likely to implement.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/