Re: [Anima-signaling] GRASP and unicast UDP

Thanks a lot for the insight. How about trying CoAP ?

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:42:40PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> To entertain myself while waiting for comments on other matters, I spent
> quite some time (and swear words) on hacking the prototype GRASP to use
> UDP instead of TCP for unicast operations (i.e. discovery responses,
> synchronization responses, and negotiation).
> 
> My conclusion is that it's a fairly silly thing to do, except possibly
> for discovery, which only involved a normal amount of debugging. I'm sure
> this is something that DNS server developers are very familiar with:
> writing a robust server handling things over UDP is a great deal harder
> than doing it with TCP. In fact I gave up when I realised that for
> the negotiation case (where there are an unpredictable number of messages
> in both directions) I was basically going to have to rewrite half of TCP,
> and still not have a robust solution. Without a lot more work, the UDP
> solution is riddled with timing-dependent issues. (At one point, adding
> a print statement for debugging fixed the bug, so that I simply couldn't
> debug it...)
> 
> Of course, all this could be solved with more work, but I'm really not
> sure we should recommend UDP at all, except for discovery responses.
> I can't really imagine a real autonomic node that doesn't have TCP code.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima-signaling mailing list
> Anima-signaling@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling