[standards-jig] IBB Again

David 'TheRaven' Chisnall theraven at sucs.org
Tue May 6 11:25:03 UTC 2003


On the other hand, this kind of delivery would only be used as a 
fall-back by people unable to use a direct connection (due to firewalls, 
NATs etc), for whom a crap connection may well be better than no 
connection at all...

Jacek Konieczny wrote:

>On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:56:06AM +0100, David 'TheRaven' Chisnall wrote:
>  
>
>>As a common denominator, almost all unreliable protocols (such as those 
>>based on RTP) are using UDP at the network layer, so surely all that is 
>>required is a mechanism for transporting UDP datagrams over the Jabber 
>>network?  This can be done simply by embedding each datagram, base 64 
>>encoded, in a message tag, and having the server drop those messages 
>>that karma settings mean would require excessive bandwidth.  What have I 
>>missed?
>>    
>>
>
>Jabber connection are made over TCP. And packets that are not dropped by
>Jabber may be retransmitted at TCP level if some IP packets are dropped.
>This may cause unacceptable delays. All advantages of using unreliable
>protocols are lost when they are implemented over TCP, and many TCP
>disadvantages are multiplied then. 
>
>Greets,
>	Jacek
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>
>  
>





More information about the Standards mailing list