I'd stay with 'barfing packets'. It reflects a much richer user experience. Tom www.isaserver.org/shinder <http://www.isaserver.org/shinder> Tom and Deb Shinder's Configuring ISA Server 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7> MVP -- ISA Firewalls ________________________________ From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:21 PM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question http://www.ISAserver.org I'll start with "monkeys & buckets" again if you don't watch out... :-) ________________________________ From: Thomas W Shinder [mailto:tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Fri 2/11/2005 11:18 AM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question http://www.ISAserver.org He said "barfing packets" heh heh. ;-) Tom www.isaserver.org/shinder <http://www.isaserver.org/shinder> Tom and Deb Shinder's Configuring ISA Server 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7> MVP -- ISA Firewalls ________________________________ From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:49 PM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question http://www.ISAserver.org Just because you "see" it that way doesn't make it true. Lots of folks think Elvis is alive and well; that doesn't make it true, either. Nothing about UDP makes it "time sensitive", regardless of how you want to interpret it. UDP is more efficient "on the wire" than TCP because there's no connection state to maintain when sending packets, but this is offset by the fact that the application is now required to handle all the packet reassembly and ordering. Where would you rather "waste" CPU cycles; in user or Kernel mode? TCP packet reassembly operates in Kernel mode (more efficient), while UDP packet reassembly operates in user mode (less efficient). Yeh; I'll defer to games for my TCP/IP references - they're certainly the defining force in the network world, yup-yup. Games use UDP because it doesn't require them to write their apps to handle Winsock connection states, which are more difficult than simply barfing packets. They also prefer UDP because as you pointed out, it allows them to ignore packets that arrive out of sequence. This is also true of PCAW. ________________________________ From: TRadtke@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:TRadtke@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Fri 2/11/2005 7:01 AM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question http://www.ISAserver.org So Jim, you'd use TCP for streaming video? I'd call that time sensitive, and if the packet is out of sequence, it's useless. No need for TCP there. How about online gaming? WoW, M59, etc, they all use UDP for data transmission. Time sensitive. Didn't get it soon enough? Why bother processing something that you don't even need to know about. Why use TCP to reconstruct the packet sequence when it's pointless. It wastes CPU cycles and network card buffers to hold out of sequence packets. PCAnywhere uses UDP for data stream for the remote desktop. Time sensitive? Yes. Why in the hell would I want to see my mouse jump around the screen doing things that I did a few seconds ago? If you even bothered to understand what I wrote, you'd see that you even agreed with me that it's non-guaranteed delivery. Data that either is there or useless to me IS time sensitive. Just because your definition of time sensitive is different than mine does not make my fist post any less valid that your post. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:11 PM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question Some reading on basic TCP/IP is clearly in order... "UDP is normally used for time sensitive information"?!? Where did you get this? UDP in and of itself provides no delivery guarantees whatsoever. -----Original Message----- From: TRadtke@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:TRadtke@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:41 PM To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List] Subject: [isalist] RE: UDP Question http://www.ISAserver.org Well, UDP is normally used for time sensitive information. UDP delivery is not guarantied at all. Most of the time it's used both ways if it's being used since if I'm not getting your traffic, it really won't matter if your not getting mine. For example, live video streams.