[nanomsg] Re: NAT transport
- From: Sahir Hoda <hoda.29w@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:24:55 -0500
The SCTP protocol has a user space implementation that can run over UDP.
This will give you most of the same guarantees as TCP, as well as some
additional features such as multi-homing, keepalives, a message-oriented
stream, and support for multiple streams within a single connection:
https://code.google.com/p/sctp-refimpl/
https://code.google.com/p/sctp-refimpl/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2FKERN%2Fusrsctp
It would be really neat to see nanomsg support this as a transport, IMO.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Matthew Hall
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:38 PM
> To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [nanomsg] Re: NAT transport
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 07:32:46PM -0400, George Walker wrote:
> > Instead of reimplementing those desirable attributes of TCP for UDP,
> might
> > it be less work to take a TCP stack that already runs in userspace and
> hack
> > it to run TCP over UDP?
>
> It's an option. But the code of full featured TCP stacks is so massive
> it's
> hard to fathom, and often tied to a lot of implementation details of the
> memory management subsystems of whatever it's taken from.
>
> How do I know this? I looked at stealing code from Linux, BSD, LWIP,
> Minix,
> and several other TCP stacks for the open source project in which I am
> using
> nanomsg, for a different area in the code from where nanomsg is used.
>
> The code of the full featured stacks ended up being so complex, weird,
> and
> undocumented, that it was easier for me to write the stack myself from
> scratch
> using textbooks and the TCP RFCs.
>
> Matthew.
Other related posts:
