Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!ruunsa!fysaj!muts From: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Reliable Datagram ??? Protocols Message-ID: <1662@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl> Date: 25 Oct 90 12:22:14 GMT References: <9010231728.AA03948@braden.isi.edu> <12632159446.18.BILLW@mathom.cisco.com> Sender: news@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Lines: 29 bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >>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. There may well be another reason not to use TCP. I for example am busy with distributing programs over dozens of workstations. Every program must be able to talk to any other one, 30 TCP connections is often the maximum possible. I could automatically close a connection if a new one must be opened, but how do I know if no data is to be read, or underway, to the connection I want to close? If someone has another solution for this problem than making a reliable UDP I'd like to hear it. -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-533880 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands