Subject: Re: [boost] [asio] RFC on new reliable UDP library
From: adzm (adam.walling_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-11 12:50:16
asio support for UDT could easily stand alone. I have considered embarking
upon this project myself, but the UDT library does not easily fit into
asio's patterns. However, there is also the possiblity of implementing the
UDT protocol rather than wrapping the UDT library, but that is obviously
much more work and more surface area for bugs. But UDT fulfills most needs
for mixing reliable with unreliable transport.
Are there other popular user-mode protocols built over UDP that provide
similar functionality? Elsewhere in this thread uTP was mentioned, but I am
unfamiliar. SCTP is also mentioned, but has the unfortunate and significant
drawback of being both painful and rare on Windows.
I really think supporting UDT, either via wrapping the library or
implementing the protocol, would be a great first step. It would be
immediately usable by many users, and I am certain the process of
implementation will reveal where the limitations of asio hurt the most.
Beyond that, I think there is a definite need for this, but the biggest
obstacle is that most applicable standards are either very complex or don't
exist in the first place. And boost is probably not the best place for
implementing a custom protocol, although would be a great home for the
For example, over the years I've coded several UDP hole punch
implementations, and have always wanted to submit them to boost, but they
ended up depending on some non-standard functionality for things like
authentication, match-making, IP address detection, etc. The alternative
leads to something like ICE, but the complexity level rises quickly after
- Adam D. Walling
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/asio-RFC-on-new-reliable-UDP-library-tp4667407p4667490.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk