On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Niall Douglas
On 10 Sep 2014 at 23:12, Andrey Semashev wrote:
How would it compare to SCTP and why not just add support for SCTP
to
Boost.ASIO?
It wouldn't compare to SCTP. It would make the adding of SCTP support to ASIO much easier hopefully.
On 11 Sep 2014 at 9:26, Václav Zeman wrote:
+1. I have had the same thought.
For my client's purposes, SCTP is not useful because it is not TCP nor UDP, and therefore is not understood by home networking equipment. This is a showstopper for them. There is SCTP over UDP, however there is no mature portable implementation library for that which I am aware of. In comparison, UDT is portable and has a mature portable implementation library, and one in fairly high quality C++ at that too. Hence the choice of UDT over SCTP as the second wire format we are likely to implement.
There is libusrsctp [1][2], although it's under BSD license (as is the UDT library) and in C. UDT over SCTP looks like a duplicate work since the functionality of these protocols largely overlap (as far as I can see from Wikipedia). Basically, that's why SCTP looks so appealing - it offers everything UDT does and then some, and it is standardized. [1] http://sctp.fh-muenster.de/sctp-user-land-stack.html [2] https://code.google.com/p/sctp-refimpl/source/browse/trunk/KERN/usrsctp/