[rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realiable data service)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 07/20/11 03:13, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2011, at 15:11 , Randell Jesup wrote:
>
>> All that said - yes, there are complexity issues to consider, which was why I was suggesting leveraging
>> an existing tunneled protocol like SCTP or even TCP-over-UDP.
> I agree with bunch of what you are saying but the previous several times I've seen the use SCTP over UDP conversation, it usually ends about the point the we ask for a user land implementation. Whatever we do more or less has to be user land or already exist in the OS that people run browsers on.
>
> If someone has a user land implementation of SCTP or TCP, I imagine that might change the outcome a bit from previous times. I have not looked at the TCP over UPD library Justin mentioned but, at casual glance, I noticed is around 400 lines of code which is very small, which is cool. But given the lines of code in say the BSD TCP stack, it does make me wonder what's missing. That said, I don't think we need something with the perforce of the BSD TCP stack as long as what is there is TCP friendly and robust.
I believe this is the current URL:

http://code.google.com/p/libjingle/source/browse/trunk/talk/session/tunnel/pseudotcpchannel.cc 
(500 or so lines).

The real protocol implementation is here:
http://code.google.com/p/libjingle/source/browse/trunk/talk/p2p/base/pseudotcp.cc
which is another 1000 lines (not counting the various .h files).

We're not THAT good at writing compact code :-)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>