Subject: Re: [boost] [asio] RFC on new reliable UDP library
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-11 08:14:10
On 11 Sep 2014 at 15:10, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > 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.
I think you thought I said we intend to implement UDT atop of SCTP.
SCTP isn't useful to us due to the lack of home networking equipment
support, we won't be implementing that. We will probably be
implementing UDT though instead, it can NAT hole punch too. No SCTP,
but someone else not us might find our library useful in such an
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk