Re: [SWMP] Re: faster field messages

Roland Weber <> Fri, 31 August 2007 16:33 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IR9RI-0006XB-2H; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:33:44 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IR9RG-0006Wt-Ic for; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:33:42 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IR9RF-0003Dr-UR for; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:33:42 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwtQ-1IR9R73Lkm-0006xC; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:33:37 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:33:37 +0200
From: Roland Weber <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070807 SeaMonkey/1.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [SWMP] Re: faster field messages
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19R4HVb3rzySSN10CN4eqL8Ztmlqh0CxnphuWf skSdRMBFDGSkrjKXDhZGt+jMtNI8h3H5Pc+yNMmjjVaOv3WT8t 3YUgyTI7Tz0EcwDFduKzeEVTLJd9qxZ
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of a Simple Wide-area Multiuser-3D Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

> So each side gets to declare its own mapping and the other is obligated to 
> keep track of that.

What are the limits, like a maximum number of mappings, or a
maximum guaranteed lifetime of mappings? Unlimited mappings
that each peer needs to keep track of open the gate for easy
DoS attacks. Negotiated limits with each peer would not allow
a server to use the same mappings for each client.
One approach would be that a peer advertises how many mappings
it is going to use, so that the partner can decide on whether
to accept that number or cancel the connection. Another is to
define a maximum number in the protocol, like 255 or 256. That
may be too restrictive, but allowing two bytes and more than
65000 mappings will trigger memory problems, in particular on
a server.

>From the paper (I've read it by now) I perceived it rather
as an ad hoc technique used to shrink the size of a group of
messages in an UDP packet. In that case, the lifetime of a
mapping could be restricted to the packet. But that doesn't
map to TCP connections, or your discussion of defining the
mappings on a separate channel.
In the extreme case of ad hoc, you'd have only one mapping
which is defined at the beginning of a sequence of messages
referring to the same node, and overwritten by the next
definition. Actually, that's not even a mapping anymore,
but an implicit argument.


SWMP mailing list