Subject: Re: [boost] [asio] RFC on new reliable UDP library
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-11 07:10:03
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Niall Douglas
> On 10 Sep 2014 at 23:12, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> How would it compare to SCTP and why not just add support for SCTP
> 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, VÃ¡clav 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.
There is libusrsctp , although it's under BSD license (as is the
UDT library) and in C.
UDT over SCTP looks like a duplicate work since the functionality of
these protocols largely overlap (as far as I can see from Wikipedia).
Basically, that's why SCTP looks so appealing - it offers everything
UDT does and then some, and it is standardized.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk