Why is it that there has yet to be a network engine, atleast that i''ve seen, that uses SOCK_SEQPACKET or SOCK_RDM to handle what most custom reliable UDP API''s do? Is it that those Socket Types aren''t supported in all operating systems? or that they are slow, undocumented, etc? A little clarification about why we never see those socket types used would be nice. My curiousity is killing me Regards, synth0id

Too simple for me. Why can''t we just assign a protocol ourselves? What is keeping us from using UDP or even implementing our own, whatever that would take? Any ideas?

Which is what everyone else does.

Perhaps it would be useful to specify one of these in an RFC, but currently, there just isn''t any need for interop at this level.

quote:Original post by Synth0id
Too simple for me. Why can''t we just assign a protocol ourselves? What is keeping us from using UDP or even implementing our own, whatever that would take? Any ideas?

Initiative. Someone has to take up the torch and design a protocol, submit RFC''s, provide a proof-of-concept and reference implementation, and produce a good design that is accepted by the IETF working group as a standard.

Also tcp will usually solve any problem that requires sequential and/or reliable packets.

Only within the realm of real-time multi-user communication do we look for hybrid protocols more reliable than UDP but more responsive than TCP.

In that realm, current work is focused on reliable multicasting, and the requirements of applications are so wide spread that no single protocol meets their demands.

Then, we have games that are forced to work with end-user equipment and locked-down internet routers, and not the "right way" using multicast capable hardware.