G33X Nexus Entertainment > RaptorNL

Questions about the RUDP headers

<< < (2/2)

contingencyplan:
So what you're saying is to do the "extension" idea - take the stuff that's already done by UDP and leave it in the UDP header, then have a secondary header for the remaining RDP stuff?

That sounds like it might work, with some tweaks to the spec...

Morgul:
Actually, if I had understood that there was some thought of doing RUDP on top of just IP, I would have spoken up, and recommended the RUDP header inside the UDP header idea. It doesn't make sense to do all the leg work for RUDP on IP. Seriously, it just isn't worth it, imho.

contingencyplan:

--- Quote from: morgul on November 22, 2006, 04:17:10 pm ---Actually, if I had understood that there was some thought of doing RUDP on top of just IP, I would have spoken up, and recommended the RUDP header inside the UDP header idea. It doesn't make sense to do all the leg work for RUDP on IP. Seriously, it just isn't worth it, imho.

--- End quote ---

Ditto.

whitelynx:
Yeah, the original idea was to simply put a reliability layer on top of UDP, and personally I never cared much if it matched up with the RUDP spec. ;)

I wasn't aware that UDP already included a checksum, or I would have left that out. We'll make sure we take that into account when we get around to working on the protocol some more. Thanks for the input!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page