Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Reliable Datagram ??? Protocols Message-ID: Date: 24 Oct 90 22:44:03 GMT References: <9010231728.AA03948@braden.isi.edu> <12632159446.18.BILLW@mathom.cisco.com> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM's message of 23 Oct 90 20:44:18 GMT >Aesthetically, though, it bothers me to have to do the extra work of >converting datagrams to streams and back when the underlying transmission >scheme is almost certainly datagram based. (Hmm, is anyone running TCP >over anything other than IP?) > >BillW But it's orders of magnitude easier than trying to add reliability (and performance, once you've added that reliability) to UDP or similar. All you basically need is to add a count field to each "packet" if you put it over TCP. (One can get fancier, depends on the real need of the application, originally I think all that was asked was that a write of X bytes at this end can be turned into a read of X bytes at the other end, record boundaries, that's trivial over TCP as it's all sequenced and reliable already.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD