On 5/18/10 12:37 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi, the discussion has touched on lots of things related to UDP encaps, but I haven't seen anything I'd call consensus on the question below. I'd therefore like to ask folks to specifically state which option they support: (1) do one SCTP-specific and one DCCP-specific UDP encaps (2) do one generic UDP encaps that can be used with both (3) do neither (don't do any sort of UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP)
1 or 2. However, SCTP can go hang. It's a protocol in search of a problem, IMO.
I have looked at using DCCP three different times, but I wind up adding a few tweaks to my home-grown poor-man's DCCP-like system. Every time I implement yet another game with timely UDP hole-punched NAT packets, I cry that I can't use DCCP.
DCCP would probably displace every game library's custom-brewed NAT punching network code if you gave it a proper UDP encap. If you want DCCP uptake, there's your target market.
It would be even better if you could implement DCCP with UDP encap with the baseline UDP networking facilities of Java. A whole bunch of Android developers would grab that.
While it would be nice for applications to talk DCCP directly to one another, the reality is that UDP encapsulation is the only way DCCP will ever get any significant uptake.
-a
