Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!not-for-mail From: Grant Edwards Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded Subject: Re: UDP timers Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1389024495 27352 64.122.56.22 (6 Jan 2014 16:08:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:08:15 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:15407 On 2014-01-05, Simon Clubley wrote: > So you don't want TCP, but you want 80% of what TCP provides ? :-) > > You know what they say about those who fail to understand TCP... :-) I suspect what he wants is a reliable datagram service rather than a reliable byte-stream service (which is what TCP provides). I also suspect the datagrams are pretty limited in size. But, with no real stated requirments, I'm just guessing. He could acheive this by layering a datagram protocol on top of TCP. OTOH, he could layer an ack/timeout/retransmit protocol on top of UDP. If he's willing to limit is datagram size to 1KB, he could probably even get away with skipping the IP fragmentation/reassembly stuff. Without knowing detailed requirements it's impossible to say much more... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! An INK-LING? Sure -- at TAKE one!! Did you BUY any gmail.com COMMUNIST UNIFORMS??