Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:10:58
Perry E. Metzger (perry@piermont.com)
Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:28:13 -0400
Berke Durak writes:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> > Berke Durak writes:
> > > It could be built over UDP, since TCP is painfully slow over long-distanc
e
> > > links with important packet loss.
> >
> > I think you don't understand TCP. Do us a favor, though, and don't use
> > UDP.
>
> I am talking about UDP because, as its name implies, UDP is a
> connectionless, datagram protocol:
You claimed that TCP is "painfully slow over long distance links" --
it is, in fact, about as high performance as any protocol can be over
such links, and it (in fact) is also as light weight as a protocol can
generally be. It handles congestion control very well -- hand hacked
algorithms in UDP are usually contributors to congestion, and are
highly discouraged in an internet context.
> By the way I'm currently in Turkey, a country where Internet infrastructure
> is quite underdevelopped; there can be incredible amounts of packet loss (>70
%),
> and unimaginable round-trip times (10000 ms) to some servers (due to low
> bandwidth and poor routing).
Tossing UDP into such a network is likely to make it worse. You
probably are in a situation where the only actual solution is
increasing local bandwidth. At least TCP will back off in such a
situation, preventing total network collapse.
TCP with SACK might help a bit in such conditions, of course.
Perry
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:10:58