[nanomsg] Re: initial code repo for Go version of SP protocols
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 01:35:49 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 25/03/14 19:56, Alex Elsayed wrote:
>> I think you are missing the big point here: We are not trying to
>> build a new L4 protocol. We are operating on a layer above L4
>> which happens to be able to use different L4 protocols. And one
>> of those protocols happens to be UDP.
>
> My point is that if you don't have congestion control in your
> transport, you then are expected to implement TCP-friendly
> congestion control in your application protocol. See: Bittorrent,
> and how in moving to UDP in implemented LEDBAT.
Ok. Got you.
But still, how is this an SP-level problem? If user opts to use UDP
transport for SP, he accepts the responsibility to implement
reasonable CC in his application.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTMiDlAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YqRoH/2Mcm3SUfvqfaHoGxhu+rkcv
BCDywG1lCLGGC40cU9ms3bU52em+6VfTBuAz9YkIZEV4uEl3o6WryVlznvaNJRBg
ZkEm5e0hUxPrRFrC4iIrP+3jTwMnSeEXor4WliSengkkrYN2jBIe9QR7q03SSgbD
dhYUxw3lIw+iHYR2erAS1gmFO+0HkmsAxFa3vlFwCNbvVaQm9P8CxjMdDV7OpY1m
HP13kJ/5U8FiiH4IEgEEUKxKDchJMYiVlNGLNuC59OEZuzeR1sZ0AXgkRqpR/I69
d+xefEQREE3JayCAZZjGhcWd1jpIlZn2wO6zH3pnGetp0xC3cqCNVqHNPrn4nL4=
=pf7T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
